Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4679. Mr. Speaker, this bill lacks any standard for application of lifetime supervision and would make subject to lifetime supervision those who may be involved only in misdemeanors and in cases involving consensual acts, including consensual touching between teenagers still in high school. There may be cases for which consideration of such treatment is warranted, but certainly not in misdemeanors and consensual sex acts. During the committee consideration of the bill, I offered amendments aimed at focusing the bill on the types of cases that might warrant consideration of lifetime supervision by eliminating misdemeanors and consensual acts for first-time offenders, but these amendments were rejected and were on a procedure that does not allow amendments on the floor. Although judges have the discretion to impose lifetime supervision or not, a judge must consider that if Congress authorizes lifetime supervision for first-time misdemeanors or consensual acts between adults or between high school students, with no indication of how it should be applied in these cases, it must be that Congress intends for it to apply in such cases. In this overzealous context of indiscriminately ferreting out sex offenders for harsher treatment, there are likely to be judges who, like the lawmakers promoting such policies, who will prefer to err on the side of harsh treatments to avoid the possible criticism that they were not as tough as they could have been should an offender actually recidivate. We have plenty of evidence as to how this harsh treatment is applied in our criminal justice system and that it is minorities will be at the receiving end. That is because this bill will only apply to cases of Federal jurisdiction, and we know that the Federal jurisdiction crimes fall disproportionately on Native Americans who comprise about 75 to 80 percent of all cases involving Federal jurisdiction. And even if the clear racially disparate unfairness is not there, it is also unfair for offenders in the same State to face vastly differing harshness and treatments just because they were either right on the reservation or across the road outside of the reservation. For many crimes covered by this lifetime supervision provision, the situation will be more about enforcing the conditions of supervision than about preventing additional sex offenses. That is because the supervision will take place when the defendant is out in the community and just checks in occasionally for supervision. Offenders will be in and out of prison not for new sexual offenses but for technical violations of their conditions of supervision. This is not only unfair to what may be a very minor offender but it is actually a waste of the taxpayers' resources. There were no hearings on the bill and no showing that there is any problem with the length of supervision period now available for the courts and certainly no hearing to see why this should apply disproportionately to Native Americans, as to whether or not there is any special problem in the Native American community. This suggests something to make it look like we are doing something about crime when in reality we are not doing anything but imposing unnecessarily harsh and unfair policies on Native Americans. I, therefore, urge the defeat of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just again state that someone in Washington, D.C., crossing the line to go to the Commonwealth of Virginia to commit fornication, two consenting adults, if caught, could be subjected to lifetime supervision. I do not think that is the kind of case the supporters of the bill were talking about. We ought to bring this bill up in a forum where one could amend it to take those kind of situations out, and for that reason the motion to suspend the rules ought to be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the bill. The bill is way overbroad in its application, so much so that it would make it a felony, up to 15 years in prison, for the older of two teen-age high school students to attempt or even talk about and agree to travel across State lines or foreign boundaries to engage in consensual sexual activity, including what is referred to as heavy petting, since the provision covers even touching through the definition of sexual act. It is already a serious felony with up to 15 years in prison for such teenagers, one 19 and one 15, to actually engage in these consensual activities in their community, and now we make it another serious felony for them to even to attempt to travel from Virginia to Washington, D.C., to engage in consensual activities or even to just agree to it, since conspiracy would be a crime. Certainly there are individuals in situations covered by the bill with which we all can agree, such as sexual predators who prey upon children, but we do not want to put wayward teenagers in this group as the bill does. During the committee markup on the bill, I offered an amendment to eliminate consensual activities between teenagers, but that amendment was rejected. Since the bill covers foreign travel by United States citizens and resident aliens traveling from the United States, we are dictating to the world our notions of serious felony crimes, regardless of the cultural norms of other countries. Just as the average age of marriage in this country was 15 for a female and 21 for a male only about 50 years ago, other countries have much younger averages now than does the United States and provide for consensual relationships to begin between young people much earlier than we expect in the United States. This bill covers commercial sex transactions regardless of age or consent of the participants; and since States as well as all civilized foreign countries have laws against the underlying activities at which this bill is aimed, there is no demonstrated need to add more Federal criminal laws to go after consensual activities between teens which have nothing to do with the title or the focus of the bill. There are some valuable provisions in the bill, and it covers much activity, but it also covers much activity for which a 15-year penalty would actually be bizarre. I hope we would defeat the motion to suspend the rules so that the bill could be amended to include just the valuable provisions without including activities which should not be included. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make two different points. First, the question has been raised about how difficult it is for the government to actually prosecute the cases. The Supreme Court dealt with that when they said, in throwing out the previous language: ``The government raises serious constitutional difficulties by seeking to impose on the defendant the burden of proving that his speech is not unlawful. That 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.'' It goes on to say: ``Where the defendant is not the producer of the work, he may have no way of establishing the identity or even the existence of 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.'' It dealt with the issue of prosecution and said that is not something that can be used. Also, let me cite another part of the case. It says: ``The government says that indirect harms are sufficient because, as Ferber acknowledged, child pornography rarely can be valuable speech . . . This argument, however, suffers from two flaws. First, Ferber's judgment about child pornography was based on how it was made, not on what it communicated. The case reaffirmed that where speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the protection of the first amendment.'' And second: ``Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value. On the contrary, the Court recognized that some works in the category might have significant value, but relied on virtual images, the very images prohibited by the CPPA, as an alternative and permissible means of expression.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the word ``indistinguishable'' has been used. The only thing indistinguishable in this debate is that this bill is indistinguishable from the law the Supreme Court threw out just 2 months ago, and this bill should therefore be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to take this resolution seriously. We have heard references to a balanced budget. This resolution has nothing to do with a balanced budget. Balanced means that one's spending does not exceed their revenues, but as we read the resolution, there is no limitation on spending. There is no limitation on size of government. Spending can be increased with a simple majority. Paying for the spending takes a two-thirds vote. New programs can be enacted with a simple majority. Increase the size of government with a simple majority, but two-thirds vote in each House will be required to pay for that new spending or we just run up a deficit. We have heard reference that the States have a simple majority to raise taxes, but those States balance their budgets as a matter of law. So if they cannot raise the taxes, they cannot do the spending. In this House, however, we can increase the spending whether we increase the taxes or not. We can run up a deficit and just leave it to the next generation to pay for it. Further, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the resolution, we see what it does to corporate loopholes. To eliminate the corporate loophole that allows some corporations to move offshore and save taxes, that would require a two-thirds vote. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is a dubious effect, anyway, because the provisions can be waived with a simple majority any time the United States is ``engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security.'' Mr. Speaker, that has been the case almost continuously for the last 50 years, and it is not just for the conflict that we could raise taxes. It is during the conflict. So we would waive this provision and pass legislation, whether it has anything to do with terrorism or not. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a recipe for fiscal disaster. Increased spending with a simple majority, paying for that spending requires a two-thirds vote and a two-thirds vote to close corporate loopholes. For the sake of fiscal sanity, this resolution should be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act, in its present form and urge my colleagues to support the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Section 141 of H.R. 3129 is problematic because it offers full immunity from civil damages if a customs officer performed the search in so-called good faith. Since the bill does not define what constitutes good faith, it effectively expands the current immunity standard to the point of making it nearly impossible for a person to seek redress against a customs officer for an unconstitutional search. Under current law, government officers performing their specified functions are afforded qualified immunity from civil damages as long as the officer's actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said in 1992 that officers ``are not liable for bad guesses in gray areas, they are liable for transgressing bright lines.'' That is the current law. The availability of qualified immunity is determined against a standard of objective reasonableness. Whether an officer may be held personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken. As the Supreme Court said in 1986, the present qualified immunity protects ``all but the plainly incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law.'' But this bill seeks to go further and extends the immunity to situations where customs officers allege that they were acting in good faith, regardless of whether they were transgressing a bright line in the law or not, and regardless of whether they should have known that their actions violated the law. Under this bill, a customs officer could engage in blatantly discriminatory conduct; but if he believed it was in good faith, then he could not be held liable. Let us remember what we are talking about here. Unconstitutional, unreasonable searches by government officials, searches which could include strip searches and so-called cavity searches. Mr. Chairman, many of these searches have been found to have been conducted pursuant to policies of racial profiling. A March 2000 General Accounting Office report found that while African Americans were nine times more likely to be searched than white Americans, they were no more likely to be found to be carrying contraband. The only way to give victims an effective means to stop these practices is through lawsuits. And here we have a bill that will throw some of these people out of court, deny them compensation for violations of their constitutional rights, and make it even less likely that these illegal searches will be stopped. The substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) offers a more balanced approach. Those aggrieved will still have their day in court, because although customs officers will still be immune from liability under the substitute, the Federal Government will ultimately be liable for violations. In cases like these, the government, rather than the individual officer, usually ends up paying the judgment anyway, so this should not be a significant burden. And this is a fairer alternative since the immunity is preserved but the person who is victimized can still be made whole, and the Federal Government will be encouraged to correct the practices of its employees. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Democratic substitute and, if it fails, to vote against H.R. 3129.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1877, the Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act. I believe the bill represents an unnecessary expansion of Federal wiretap authority, a procedure so pervasive of the rights of citizens in a free society that it can only be made available for use under circumstances specifically approved by Congress. The current congressionally approved wiretap authority dates back to the 1968 crime bill. The primary intent of the law was to permit a limited use of electronic surveillance of organized crime syndicates, but even under those circumstances, as a tool of last resort. Since that time the act has been amended over a dozen times to meet the demands of law enforcement officials for more power to eavesdrop on our citizens. We now have over 50 predicate crimes for which wiretap authority may be obtained. Regrettably, a number of these predicates involve relatively minor criminal activity. But now the argument goes that if we amended the wiretap authority to add one crime, we should certainly amend it to add another. As a result, the wiretaps are becoming a routine rather than an extraordinary procedure used as a last resort. Eavesdropping on conversations from a household or a pay phone or a cell phone is a very intrusive law enforcement activity. Once a wiretap, or a bug, is in place, it captures all conversations, innocent as well as criminal. Estimates I have seen indicate that over 80 percent of the information obtained by wiretaps is innocent information, often involving family members and others who are not even targets of the investigation. As Members will remember from the debate after September 11, some wiretaps are the so-called roving wiretaps where bugs can be placed on any phone the target uses, at his home, at his workplace, at the pay phone on the corner, at his neighbor's house or country club, and many innocent people will have their private, unrelated conversations listened in on by government employees. At a hearing on this bill in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, an FBI witness testified about certain successful investigations in which wiretap authority would have been helpful. Given the intrusive nature and many innocent individuals and conversations it will necessarily ensnare, it is not enough justification for it to be merely helpful to law enforcement. It ought to be necessary. Even without this expansion, the use of wiretap authority is rapidly growing. For example, in 1980, 81 Federal wiretaps were issued. In 1999, 601. That is 81 to 601 wiretaps were issued. Most of the crimes covered by this bill also involve activities that are State crimes. Indeed, over 98 percent of all criminal prosecutions are conducted at the State level. Each State can authorize wiretaps and most do. However, the total number of all State wiretaps amounts to almost the same number as the Federal wiretaps, 749 in the whole country in State wiretaps to 601 Federal wiretaps in 1999. The fact that a few States have chosen not to authorize wiretaps at all and the limited number of State wiretaps that are authorized as compared to the number of Federal wiretaps attests to the level of concern citizens have with law enforcement officials having power over their private conversations. Mr. Speaker, as we address this bill, we see that much of the activity for which the proponents of the legislation are seeking to justify this wiretap authority is already covered by Federal wiretap authority. Moreover, most, if not all, of the activity under the sections added by H.R. 1877 for wiretap authority are covered by the general wiretap authority in the Federal law for crimes against child exploitation. And all of it is already covered by e-mail, fax and other electronic eavesdrop authority and investigatory techniques. And so, Mr. Speaker, to understand the impact of the legislation, we have to focus on those crimes not currently covered under present law which will be covered by additions under this bill. One provision allows wiretap when probable cause exists that a person is producing sexually explicit computer-generated images of children. This very month, the Supreme Court said that computer-generated images of children that are not obscene and do not involve real children are not criminal. This bill would allow wiretaps for those situations. Wiretaps should be used only in extraordinary situations. We certainly should not be adding wiretap authority to investigate something that is not even a crime. I attempted improvements to the bill in committee by offering amendments to limit the application to its stated objective of protecting children. One amendment which was not adopted would have limited the extension of wiretap authority to cases involving actual as opposed to virtual children in keeping with the recent Supreme Court decision. That was not adopted. Another limited the application of the act to cases involving children as opposed to adults. There is absolutely no justification in a bill purportedly designed to protect children to authorize wiretap authority for the FBI to listen in on garden-variety adult prostitution cases. Prostitution is actually legal in some places. Yet under Federal law it is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison to persuade, induce or entice or attempt to, or to conspire to have someone cross a State line to engage in this legal activity. If this bill becomes law, the FBI will be able to wiretap conversations to determine if there is such persuasion, enticement or inducement or attempt or conspiracy. There are other situations involving consensual activities involving high school students that we see routinely on prom night which would provide a Federal wiretap under this bill. With such shortcomings, Mr. Speaker, this bill should not be on the suspension calendar but should be fully debated and open to amendment. I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion to suspend the rules so that the bill may be considered under regular rules of order subject to full debate and amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, cases of kidnapping and murder can already be predicates for a wiretap. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Much of what is in the bill is already covered by present law. Obviously, conspiracy, kidnapping, and murder is already covered. There are some provisions that are helpful; there are also some that I think are very loosely drawn. For example, legal adult activity is covered as a predicate for wiretap. If one is calling into an area where prostitution is legal, that may be a crime, a Federal crime here in Washington, D.C., but not in Nevada. There is activity covered by this bill which was declared legal by the Supreme Court just this month as a predicate for a Federal wiretap. Consensual activities by young high school students is a predicate to a Federal wiretap. This bill is not narrowly drawn; and, therefore, we should not suspend the rules and pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3375, the Embassy Employee Compensation Act. The acts of terrorism against United States citizens and other innocent persons unfortunately did not begin on September 11. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed and destroyed by terrorists associated with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. U.S. citizens and many Kenyan and Tanzanian residents were killed in these bombings. This bill would allow those victims to be treated the same way as other victims of the same terrorist organization on September 11. This bill goes a long way to try to close a sad incident in our history; but this bill would not have become a reality without the work of Edith Bartley, and I would like to take a moment to recognize her efforts. In 1998, Ms. Bartley's father, Julian Bartley, Sr., was a counsel general in the Kenyan embassy. Her younger brother, Julian Bartley, Jr., was interning in the Kenyan embassy that summer. Both were killed during that bombing. In the memory of all of the victims of those bombings, Edith Bartley started a campaign to remember and pay tribute to them. She was the driving force behind the bill we are considering today, which would treat the victims of the two embassy bombings in East Africa and their families the same way as our other more recent victims of the same terrorist organization. I would like to commend and recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her hard work on this bill, and also the chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his efforts in passing the bill. There are many others who are associated with the bill that we would also like to thank. But on this day, when we remember all of the victims of the embassy bombings, we reaffirm our commitment to treating all of our victims of terrorism and their families equally. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Virginia. One would not think that there would be much controversy about the important role Navy aircraft carriers are playing in this very dangerous world. Indeed, if we want to follow the war on terrorism on a daily basis, it is difficult to read a newspaper article or see television coverage that does not mention what our carriers are doing to keep fighting that remains away from our shores. No less than 8 carriers have been involved in Operation Enduring Freedom or patrolling our own shores in the name of homeland security since September 11. This amendment also reaffirms our support for a fleet of no less than 12 carriers, the absolute minimum necessary to sustain coverage in the oceans around the hot spots in the world. The underlying bill restores both the funding and the original program of record for the next generation of aircraft carriers, CVNX program, and for that, Mr. Chairman, I am truly grateful. Those of us who have had the privilege of representing Hampton Roads in Virginia, where carriers are built and many home-ported, we see on a daily basis the service and sacrifice made by these brave men and women and their families they leave behind when they race off to war. It would be my hope that our action on this amendment here would reaffirm once again that we in Congress both recognize and salute all of those in the armed services, including those Navy families who remain behind as their loved ones are deployed on these massive carriers. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) on offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to agree to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of the bill H.R. 3801 which restructures and refocuses the research branch of the Department of Education. I would like to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for their leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill. The bill before us significantly restructures the current research office, known as the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, into a new Academy of Educational Sciences. The reformation of Federal educational research is absolutely essential if we are to close the achievement gaps and assure that all children have an opportunity of an equal educational opportunity. The work that we are doing on this issue will be critical in helping educators meet these challenges set forth in H.R. 1, the newly signed education bill. As the Assistant Secretary of Education noted in his testimony before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, H.R. 1 mentions scientifically-based research over 110 times as it relates to educational programs. Yet there are significant deficits in what we know about how children learn and which programs work, especially when it comes to children who are disadvantaged, have limited English proficiency or have disabilities. While our present educational system serves most children fairly well, it struggles to meet the needs of children with special challenges in their paths. The newly structured academy can help us figure out how to better serve all children, close achievement gaps and ensure that all children get a quality education. In crafting this legislation, we paid special attention to making sure that the research conducted by the academy was focused on producing useful findings, that is, teaching methodologies that we could actually put into practice. We need to find programs that are scientifically proven to be effective in educating students who have traditionally been disadvantaged so that they, and their schools, can meet the standards set forth in H.R. 1. Structuring the academy so that it concentrates on research that can be put into practice will be beneficial to all 15,000 school districts in the United States. The academy will serve as a national resource so that valuable time is not lost by each individual school and each individual teacher trying to reinvent the wheel and come up with educational programs to serve their students. I am especially pleased that we are authorizing $400 million, double the funds now available for OERI. Funding for educational research has been anemic over the years, and no amount of restructuring will achieve the needed results if appropriate resources are not applied. I would again like to thank the subcommittee chair and the ranking member for a chance to work on this bipartisan bill that restructures Federal educational research that empowers teachers and schools to be better able to do their jobs.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra); the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer); and the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill. I am especially appreciative of their acceptance of several amendments that I proposed to strengthen the bill's focus on developmental needs of abused and neglected children. In recent years, much focus has been placed on the brain damage and brain development of young people from age birth to 3. We know that experiences that a child has during this period can be critical to the foundation for their future development. Research also suggests that when a child's early experiences are negative, children may experience emotional, behavioral, and learning problems that can last through their lifetime without targeted early interventions. For a child that has been abused and neglected, it is extremely important to evaluate that child developmentally and ensure that the appropriate services are given. I am pleased that the subcommittee accepted my amendment to have children who are under 3, who have been abused or neglected, to be referred to the statewide early intervention system funded under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Part C State agencies can evaluate these children developmentally to see if there are delays that would qualify those children for services. A 1993 study by the Office of Child Abuse and Neglect found that 36 percent of the substantiated cases of child maltreatment, or about 300,000 children, caused disabilities in these children. And of those children who have been seriously abused, 18,000 of those children received permanent disabilities. Mr. Speaker, many studies have shown and documented that the earlier the services are given, the more effective they are. Ensuring that these children receive appropriate services as early as possible will reduce the need for costly interventions later on. I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the committee accepted my amendment to allow the Secretary to fund additional research focusing on the effects of child abuse and neglect on a child's development. Additional research in this area is needed to better identify successful early intervention services so that we can more appropriately serve abused and neglected children with their developmental needs. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leaders for crafting the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. I appreciate the time from the gentlewoman from New York. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it allows no amendments. There are several amendments that ought to be offered, that we ought to be able to consider. The bill prohibits anyone from transporting a minor across the State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if in fact the notification and parental consent laws were not complied with. This obviously includes a taxicab driver who knows where the person is going by virtue of their address and during the conversation on the way before they cross State lines could clearly ascertain that the minor is being transported for the purpose of an abortion. He is not required to know whether or not the parental consent laws are complied with. He would have to ascertain by the fine print in the bill whether or not they have been complied with. Otherwise, he will be exposed to criminal and civil liability. Even if a prosecutor refused to prosecute a taxicab driver for this fare, there are civil damages. Even the incest situation that the gentlewoman from New York indicated, the parents could sue the taxicab driver for civil damages. Another is the fact that there is no exception for the health of the minor. The Supreme Court, on a number of occasions for the last 30 years, has said that any antiabortion legislation must have an exception for the health of the mother. This does not include a health exception. Perhaps with an amendment we could debate this situation but because it is a closed rule, we cannot. Because it is a closed rule and we cannot debate many important amendments, I oppose the rule.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits anyone from transporting a minor across State lines in order to obtain an abortion if the notification and parental consent laws have not been complied with. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits a minor from crossing State lines herself to get the abortion. Nothing in the bill that would prohibit a parent to cross State lines with the minor and evade a State requirement that both parents be notified or consent. There is no prohibition so long as they go themselves and no one else transports them. This prohibits someone from accompanying the minor. One of the things that we mentioned before was the amendment about taxicab drivers. If a taxicab driver knows that the minor is going to get an abortion and has not ascertained that the parental consent laws have been complied with, that taxicab driver is exposed to liability, both civil and criminal. So if the prosecutor is not going to prosecute the cab driver, the parent can sue the cab driver for damages. This bill does not have a health exception and, therefore, has constitutional problems. The Supreme Court has frequently said that there has to be a health exception in any abortion legislation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to strongly consider the precedents that we are setting. The possibility that we are prohibiting crossing State lines to do something which is legal in the State someone is going to. Virginia prohibits casino gambling. We could, under this idea, prohibit people from crossing the State line, leaving Virginia to go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City to participate in something that is illegal in Virginia. Some States have lottery tickets. Others do not. Are we going to prohibit people leaving the State to go buy a lottery ticket in another State? Virginia used to prohibit shopping on Sunday. I suppose under this legislation we prohibit taking somebody across State lines to go shopping on Sunday if we still had those laws. The idea that we are going to prohibit someone crossing State lines to do something that is legal in that State is a situation that I think we ought to seriously consider and reject. This bill will do nothing to limit minors crossing State lines to obtain an abortion. The minor can go by herself to obtain the abortion. All this bill does is prohibits anyone from accompanying them. This bill does nothing to advance public safety, does nothing to reduce the abortions, and I think was counterproductive in that if the child is going to get an abortion and will get the abortion, it makes sense for them to be accompanied. I would hope that we would reject the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an amendment I offered in committee to conduct a study looking into whether and how insurance could be provided for defined contribution plans. A defined benefit plan is one that defines the benefits one will get at retirement. But a defined contribution plan only speaks to the amount of money one can put into the plan, says nothing about what will be there for someone's retirement. ERISA provided many protections, including guarantees for defined benefit plans but not for defined contribution plans. The Enron accounts we have heard so much about were defined contribution plans and, therefore, were not guaranteed. In 1974 when ERISA was enacted, the contribution plans represented an insignificant portion of the plans, but today they constitute almost half of all plans, and because those plans are not insured, those employees have no assurances that their money will actually be there when they retire. That is why I have been pleased to work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee, to include a study which will explore the feasibility of developing an insurance program for defined contribution plans, just as we have for defined benefit plans. The study could recommend, for example, a procedure for private insurance paid for with the premium on assets. To put that potential cost in context, a defined benefit insurance now costs about $19 a year per account. The study could also show what kinds of assets could be insured; for example, broadly based index funds, or AAA bonds could be insured, whereas individual stocks or junk bonds may not. The recommendation of the study could protect future employees from losing their retirement funds because stock prices collapse or because the funds in their account have been lost to fraud or theft. I would like to engage the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee, the primary sponsor of the legislation, in a colloquy for the purposes of clarifying the importance of including the study I have offered on insurance for defined contribution plans, and I would like his comments on the importance in including that study in the bill.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his assurance and look forward to working with him.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to mention that if someone is caught molesting 300 children, it is hard to believe that with consecutive sentences that they would ever get out, first or second offense. This also, unfortunately, includes misbehaving teenagers who would be treated, under this bill, worse than murderers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).