Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) to restore some measure of health benefits to Filipino veterans who fought in World War II. This amendment would simply provide $30 million in health care benefits through the VA system for those veterans who honorably served our country. On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued a military order calling members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into service. For nearly 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine Commonwealth army fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippine Islands from Japan. A second group, the Special Philippine Scouts, enlisted after October 6, 1945. Despite their valiant service, Congress enacted the 1946 Rescission Act to limit their veteran benefits. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be a small step towards ensuring Filipino veterans receive benefits just like other veterans who served in World War II. For fundamental fairness, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for their leadership.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is clear that the majority is avoiding the amendment process because they cannot defend the underlying bill. I offered an amendment that was rejected in Rules that would have required agencies when making funding decisions to consider objective merits when they consider the proposals. Now, I would like to ask, if you are not using objective merits, are the Federal officials supposed to just pick and choose between the religions based on the religion they like the best? In addition to discriminating in the grant process, it prevents amendments on the issue of whether we ought to roll back civil rights by 60 years. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, a host of other organizations, oppose this bill because of what it does to civil rights. We have heard we are not changing any present laws. Well, if you are not changing any present laws, you do not need a bill. This changes present laws, and that is the major controversy in the bill. We have not been able to discriminate in Federal contracts based on religion for decades. You can under this bill. In fact, this bill is not about small organizations, and it is not about faith organizations. Any program that can get funded under this bill can get funded today, except those sponsored by organizations who insist on discriminating based on religion. We ought to have a process where we can debate the question of discrimination in this bill. We ought to have a rule that allows that; this rule does not, and therefore, this rule ought to be rejected.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we listen to all of the programs that could be funded under this bill, remember that anything that can be funded under this bill can be funded today if the sponsor will abide by the civil rights laws. On June 25, 1941, President Roosevelt signed an Executive Order number 8802 which prohibited defense contractors from discriminating in employment based on race, color, creed or national origin. Civil rights laws of the 1960s put those protections into law. The vote was not unanimous, but the bills passed. Since then, few have questioned whether or not sponsors of Federal programs could consider a person's religious beliefs or religious practices when they were hiring someone for a job paid for with Federal money. But here we are considering a bill with no new money, a bill which provides eligibility for funding only to those programs who are eligible for funding now, if one would comply with civil rights laws. That is not a barrier to funding. Mr. Speaker, we do not need new ways to discriminate. Let us maintain our civil rights by passing the motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that no one is going to make a $25 donation because they can get $3.75 back from their taxes a year from now. If we want to help these organizations, we ought to increase the appropriations that have been cut over the past few years. And we are not going around the edges. The basic core part of the bill does not help little churches. They still have to do a grant- writing proposal. They still have to run a program pursuant to Federal regulations. They still have to withstand an audit. But they cannot discriminate now, and this bill will allow them to discriminate in hiring. That is wrong. That is why the bill ought to be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that any program that can get funded under H.R. 7 can be funded today. There is no discrimination against religious organizations. Many religious organizations get money today.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7. While it has been described as a plan to help religious organizations to receive and administer government funds, charitable choice in reality is a fundamental assault on our civil rights laws. In this debate, let us be clear. The major impact of H.R. 7 will be to allow religious sponsors who want to receive Federal funds to discriminate in hiring based on religion. Any program that can get funded under H.R. 7 can get funding today, except those run by organizations that insist on the right to discriminate in hiring. So when we hear about all the programs that can get funded, let us tell the truth, all of them can be funded today if the sponsors are willing to follow civil rights laws, just like all other Federal contractors. Just do not discriminate in hiring. So this bill is not about new programs which can get funded. There is no new money in the program. Any program funded under H.R. 7 can be funded now. This bill provides no new funding, just new discrimination. Whatever excuse there is to discriminate based on religion in these programs should apply to all Federal programs. In fact, it would apply to all private contractors or all private employers. Why should a manufacturer be required to hire people of different faiths? The answer is it is the law. Because of our sorry history of discrimination and bigotry in the past, we have had to pass laws to establish protected classes. So someone can choose their employees any way they want, except they cannot discriminate in hiring based on the protective classes of race, color, creed, national origin, or sex. This principle was established in Federal defense contracts when President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 on June 25, 1941. Now, 60 years later, here we are allowing sponsors of federally funded programs to discriminate in hiring. There are a lot of other problems with this bill, but we ought to defeat this bill strictly because of the fact that it allows new discrimination in hiring.

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to yield so I can respond briefly to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) because I think it is important to know about the importance of the first amendment. When we talk about some burning would be legal and some would not, if someone is being arrested because of the message, if someone is burning the flag and says something nice about the Vietnam War, would that be desecration? If someone says something in protest of the Vietnam War, would that be desecration? It is the same act. If the local sheriff happens to be of a particular view on that, he would want to arrest the burner because he is offended. Mr. Speaker, that is why it is important that we have the first clause in the Watt amendment. It would have to be consistent with the first amendment. The first amendment would say that one cannot restrict by virtue of the content. We can restrict the way the flag is burned, the time the flag is burned, but not the message delivered when the burning is going on.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Watt amendment, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Once again it is around the 4th of July, and we are discussing the current version of what is often referred to as the ``flag burning amendment.'' The gentleman from North Carolina has offered a meaningful alternative, one that will continue to protect the rights of free speech under the first amendment and is consistent with the opinions of former Senator John Glenn and Secretary of State Colin Powell, both of whom have spoken out in support of protecting the right of free speech and against the underlying amendment in its present form. The Supreme Court has considered the restrictions which are permissible by the Government under the first amendment. For example, with respect to speech, time, place and matter may generally be regulated, while content cannot. So if a group or individual wishes want to have a protest march, the Government can restrict the particulars of the march: what time it is held, where it is held, how loud it can be. But it cannot restrict what people are marching about. We cannot allow some marchers and ban others just because we disagree with the message. The only exception to the prohibition on regulation of content are situations, for example, where speech creates an imminent threat of violence. Burning a flag will not necessarily create an imminent threat of violence, particularly if someone is burning his own flag in his own back yard. Yet this is precisely the behavior prohibited by the underlying amendment. We should all understand that flags are burned every day in this country. Indeed, flag burning is considered the proper way to retire a flag. And every year around Flag Day or the 4th of July, flags are burned en masse in order to retire them. When these flags are burned, those attending the ceremony or doing the burning say something respectful about the flag. Flag burning under those circumstances is considered appropriate and would remain legal under this amendment. However, when protestors burn a flag in exactly the same manner, but when accompanied by words of protest, well, the underlying amendment would make that instance of flag burning illegal. So, if we say something nice while burning a flag, that is okay; but if something is said which offends the local sheriff as the flag is burned, then it would be illegal. This is nothing less than an attempt to suppress speech, and government officials should not be in the position of deciding which speech is good and which speech is bad. I believe the Watt amendment will help remedy this problem by requiring the criminalization of flag burning related to crimes must be consistent with the first amendment. Now, there would still be other problems, like what is a flag? Is a picture of a flag, a flag? What is desecration and what does that mean? Who gets to decide when an expression constitutes desecration? And what other symbols, like Bibles or copies of the Constitution, should also be protected? Those problems still remain, but I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have had a discussion with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); and I think we are going to be able to work the amendment out without going through the process of considering it on the floor. I think we have worked things out. It involves a prison study. I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the Senate passed an amendment similar to this, but it had a significant difference. The Senate amendment, while providing liability protection to teachers, principals, and educators as individuals, it never thought to provide immunity to school boards and local education authorities as entities. Immunizing every responsible party in a school and then immunizing the school system itself, as this amendment would do, means that no one will be responsible to a parent when a child is injured by an act or an omission with regard to discipline. This amendment would ensure that the schools would virtually never be accountable to parents regarding the discipline and safety of their children. So, Mr. Chairman, if no one is responsible for injuries negligently inflicted upon our children, no one will have an incentive to protect children from negligent acts. This amendment will not improve school safety and it should therefore be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment is advertised as providing liability protection for teachers, but the amendment defines ``teacher'' to include not only those that my colleagues and I might think of as teachers, but also any individual who works in a school, any member of the school board, any employee of a local education agency, as well as the school board and local education entity itself. Immunizing every responsible individual and then immunizing the school system itself, as the Brady amendment would do, means that nobody would be responsible to a parent when a child is injured by a negligent act or omission at the school. The Brady amendment would ensure that schools will virtually never be accountable to parents regarding the safety and discipline for their children. For example, the Brady amendment would eliminate accountability for negligent hiring decisions and would place schools and children at risk. Often, we have people who are hired as professional hall guards or monitors. This amendment would immunize principals and administrators who fail to make proper background checks and hire a violent or sexual predator as disciplinarian. Because the school administration is also immunized, nobody would be responsible. There would be immunity for school administrators who single out African American students or members of another protected class for discipline and punishment in violation of their civil rights, or a school employee who negligently restrains a student, and the student is injured or dies as a result. Then no one would be responsible, so no one will take precautions to make sure that these things do not happen. School boards and educational agencies owe the highest duty to our schoolchildren. They ultimately are responsible for every teacher or principal's decision regarding discipline or punishment of students. This bill would not only shield teachers, but also school boards and local governments from any responsibility. The theme throughout the reauthorization of ESEA has been accountability of schools to parents and children. This amendment would violate that goal by providing immunity to school administrators, school personnel, school boards, and local education agencies for actions that harm the health and welfare of our children that they owe a duty to protect. I ask that Members vote no on this amendment. I would also point out that the National Education Association has come out against this amendment. They say that the amendment provides for immunity for every responsible party in the school and the school system itself. The amendment would eliminate all responsibility to parents when a child is injured by disciplinary actions. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from the National Education Association. The letter is as follows: National Education Association, Washington, DC, May 21, 2001. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 2.6 million members, we urge your opposition to the Brady amendment to the ESEA reauthorization bill (H.R. 1) that would in effect remove all accountability for disciplinary actions that result in harm to the health or welfare of students. NEA does not oppose efforts to strengthen liability protections for education employees. Unlike the McConnell amendment in the Senate ESEA bill (S. 1), however, the Brady amendment provides immunity for every responsible party in a school and the school system itself--including the school board and local education agency as entities. This amendment would eliminate all responsibility to parents when a child is injured by disciplinary actions. Immunizing school boards and local education agencies will not improve discipline in the classroom. Instead, the amendment will place students at risk, while undermining the focus on accountability to parents and children central to the ESEA bill. We urge your opposition to this dangerous amendment. Sincerely, Mary Elizabeth Teasley, Director of Government Relations.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, under current law, a child with a disability who is expelled from the regular classroom for any reason is still entitled to a free and appropriate education. I know of no public policy benefit which can be achieved by sending these children to the streets without any educational services, even when they are involved with serious offenses. In fact, I see no benefit to the public for depriving any child of an education, whether they have a disability or not. It is difficult for any child who is expelled to catch up and graduate from school, and it is especially hard for disabled children. We learned, during hearings on youth crime, that there is a strong link between dropping out of school and subsequent crime. For children with disabilities, these correlations are even stronger. Research shows that children with disabilities who are put out of school without educational services are less likely than other children to ever catch up; they are less likely to graduate from high school or get a GED; they are less likely to be employed, and they are substantially more likely to be involved in crime. Some talk about a deterrent effect. Let me read a letter from the National Coalition of Police Chiefs, Prosecutors, and Crime Victims from 2 years ago. They said: ``We urge you to oppose any amendment that would deny educational services to kids who are expelled or suspended from schools. Schools can already immediately expel a student who brings weapons to schools. But giving a gun-toting kid an extended vacation from school and from all responsibility is soft on offenders and dangerous for everyone else. Please don't give those kids who most need adult supervision the unsupervised time to rob, become addicted to drugs, and get their hands on other guns to threaten students when the school bell rings.'' Mr. Chairman, during the last Congress we had a bipartisan task force on juvenile crime lasting several weeks. We met for several weeks, heard from dozens of witnesses, and not one witness had anything good to say about kicking kids out of school without continuing services. Some said take them out of the regular classroom, but continue their education. Not one witness had anything good to say about kicking them out without any services. The IDEA program is premised on the recognition that children with disabilities need more support than other students to enable them to obtain a decent education. There is nothing to suggest that less support is needed when they have disciplinary problems, even when they are serious disciplinary problems. School systems should not be allowed to send uneducated children with discipline problems onto the streets and endanger the public. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I did not say that we wanted to keep children in the classroom. If children have committed a serious offense, maybe they do need to be taken out of the classroom. What this amendment will do, if it passes, it will put those children out on the streets without any services; and all of the studies show the crime rate will go out. Mr. Chairman, that is why not a single witness on our bipartisan task force had anything good to say about this amendment. They all said we have to continue educational services if we want to protect our children.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. When we discuss the issue of testing, I think we have to remember the farmer's adage, ``You do not fatten the pig by weighing the pig,'' meaning you do not improve education merely by giving tests. So I support this amendment for the following reasons: First, there is already, in current law, provision for adequate testing. Only 11 States are in compliance with this requirement, and States spent over $400 million last year alone trying to come into compliance with the current law involving testing. Second, the new test requirements in H.R. 1 will cost substantially more than what we are providing for in the bill. A recent USA Today article reported, and I quote, ``fulfilling President Bush's proposal to test every student in grades 3 through 8 could cost States as much as $7 billion over the next 7 years, the National Association of School Boards of Education says.'' Mr. Chairman, finally, we need to address the potential inappropriate use of the tests: By using them to make high-stake decisions to punish students. Two recent New York Times articles documented that States and localities are increasingly using tests for purposes for which they are not designed and making high-stake decisions to punish students based on one single test. Tests will be given, but there is nothing in H.R. 1 to prohibit inappropriate use of those tests. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time to respond to the chairman's remarks. Mr. Speaker, if we passed a $1 million corporate loophole tax benefit that ended up costing us $10 billion because we miscalculated the impact, we could not close that loophole that passed on a simple majority vote without a two-thirds vote unless we provided $10 billion in tax relief somewhere just to close that loophole that we did not intend to create to begin with. Mr. Speaker, again, this amendment will do nothing to limit spending; it just limits our ability to pay for that spending. You create a new program, simple majority; to pay for it, it takes a two-thirds vote.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in opposition to H.J. Res. 41. H.J. Res. 41 proposes a constitutional amendment that provides that changes in Internal Revenue laws by more than a de minimis amount would require a two-thirds majority to pass, rather than the simple majority now required. Let me just point out a couple of problems with that idea, Mr. Speaker. The proposed constitutional amendment does not affect spending; only paying for the spending. You can increase spending and enact new programs with a simple majority. To pay for the new programs, you require a two-thirds majority. The limitation that this bill proposes is on whether we will pay for the spending or whether we will resort to deficit spending. Now, the same analysis applies to correcting mistakes. It would take a two-thirds majority to close a corporate loophole, while it only took a simple majority to create the loophole in the first place. If we cannot come up with a two-thirds majority to close the corporate loophole, then that loophole remains, possibly costing millions, or even billions, of dollars that could be put to use elsewhere. In fact, changing Internal Revenue laws that change the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount would also affect passing new laws to enforce the laws that are already on the books if that action would increase the internal revenues. You need a two-thirds vote to pass that. Now, if we really are being honest about reducing spending and limiting spending, the constitutional amendment ought to require a two- thirds vote not to increase taxes, but a two-thirds vote to increase spending. Now, that would limit spending. The limitation on taxes only limits your ability to pay for the spending that you have already enacted. Another problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill has the statutory language involving de minimis. While two-thirds majority vote is required to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount, the term ``de minimis'' is not defined, so, we can debate whether you need a two-thirds vote or not. Some committee members have suggested that any increase in revenue less than one-tenth of one percent of total revenues would be de minimis. But I would remind you that our total revenues are in the trillions of dollars. One-tenth of one percent of $1 trillion is $1 billion. I believe that most of us would consider $1 billion to be more than just de minimis. Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is serious business which should not be taken lightly. This bill presents very difficult questions that are not even close to being answered. It does nothing to limit spending; and, therefore, ought to be rejected.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for yielding the time. Madam Speaker, I want to thank also the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), because he and I cochair the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force, and I want to thank him and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for their dedication to protecting the Chesapeake Bay. The bill before us today reauthorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay Office through 2006. The Chesapeake Bay Office was established in 1992 to provide a focal point for NOAA's efforts and those efforts undertaken by partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program. For nearly 10 years now, the Chesapeake Bay Office has played a vital role in coordinating efforts between NOAA and Federal and State governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It has acted as a positive force in managing and preserving this unique natural treasure. This legislation before us not only authorizes the appropriations for the Chesapeake Bay Office, but it also begins a new small grant program. Local governments and organizations, such as educational institutions or community organizations within the Chesapeake Bay watershed would be eligible for grants which may make improvements to fish passageways, create natural or artificial reefs for habitats, restore wetlands or sea grass or produce oysters for restoration projects. These projects could advance the essential knowledge and information that is necessary in order for us to restore our Nation's most cherished waterway, the Chesapeake Bay, which not only has significant environmental impact on Virginia and many other States, but also contributes enormously to our recreational activities and to our economy. I, therefore, Madam Speaker, urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Women's History Month, I rise to honor the contributions of a distinguished woman. I would like to share with the House the remarkable life of Maggie Lena Walker, a Richmond, Virginia native and a business and community leader in the early part of the 20th Century. Maggie Walker is well known for her efforts on behalf of the African American community in Richmond and in the development and success of Richmond's historic Jackson Ward community, among the oldest African American communities in the country. Maggie Walker was born on July 15, 1867. She spent her childhood at the Van Lew Mansion in Richmond, Virginia, where her mother, a former slave, worked as a cook's helper. As an abolitionist, Miss Van Lew made sure that all of her servants received a good education. It was here that Maggie Walker began to learn the value and importance of education. Like many educated African American women during that time, Maggie Walker's first contribution was in the field of education where she taught in the public school system after her graduation from Armstrong Normal School in Richmond. She was required to leave the teaching profession after her marriage and soon recognized the limited availability of job opportunities for African American women. Further, it was Walker's belief that African American women had an instrumental part to play in the economic and political success of the African American community. This belief was manifested in Walker's founding of the Woman's Union, an insurance company, and the Saint Luke Penny Savings Bank, where in 1903 she was the first woman bank president in the United States. The Saint Luke Penny Savings Bank, as its name suggests, was established as an institution whose interest was the small investors, literally the pennies of the African American washerwomen--ultimately proving that even with pennies, the African American community had economic power. Maggie Walker's Saint Luke Penny Savings Bank merged with two other banks to become Consolidated Bank and Trust, the oldest existing African American owned and operated bank in the U.S., with several branches today in Richmond and Hampton, Virginia. This Saint Luke Emporium, a department store located in the Jackson Ward section of Richmond, was started by Walker and is yet another example of her promotion of African American economic empowerment. It employed scores of African American women and provided the African American community the opportunity to purchase goods from its own businesses. The Jackson Ward community in Richmond benefited greatly from Walker's influence and keen sense of business acumen; today, the Jackson Ward is known historically as the center of Richmond's African American business and social life. Maggie Walker's leadership was not confined to the business community. She set the groundwork for the local women's suffrage movement and voter registration efforts after the passage of the 19th Amendment. The evidence of her success is in the fact that close to 80 percent of eligible black voters in Richmond in the 1920s were women. Maggie Walker boldly challenged the political establishment in 1921 when she ran for State Superintendent of Public Instruction on the ``Lily Black'' Republican ticket. Although her campaign for public office was unsuccessful, it confirmed African American women's important role in the political arena and it also further invigorated the interest of the African American community in the political process. On April 26, 2001, the Junior Achievement National Hall of Fame will recognize Maggie Walker's accomplishments as the country's first African American female bank president. The mission of Junior Achievement is to ensure that every child in America has a fundamental understanding of the free enterprise system. Ms. Walker is a prime example in making that goal a reality. During her days at the St. Luke Penny Savings Bank, the bank provided small cardboard boxes to children to encourage them to save their pennies. When the children had one dollar saved, they could open a savings account with the bank. This tradition continues today at the Consolidated Bank & Trust Company. Maggie Walker's work as a political leader and business entrepreneur is a reminder to us all that the success of the African American community depends on both economic and political development.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is with a heavy heart I come to the floor to speak of one of my colleagues and dear friends, Norman Sisisky of Virginia's Fourth Congressional District. I have known Norman since we served together in the House of Delegates, over 20 years ago, and for 8 years I have had the great fortune to represent a district adjacent to his in Hampton Roads. The proximity of our districts allowed us to work together on a lot of different issues, and, as a result, we became close, and our staffs in Washington, D.C., and the district staffs became extremely close. Hampton Roads, Virginia, indeed all of Virginia and our entire Nation, was well served by Norman's leadership on the House Committee on Armed Services. He was the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement and also a member of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, where he worked diligently to ensure our Nation's military was second to none. He took pride in that responsibility and never let anyone forget it. He had a unique leadership style; one without fanfare, behind the scenes, and it was effective. Newport News Shipbuilding has remained a world leader in nuclear shipbuilding because of his efforts. We have been able to continue nuclear aircraft carrier and submarine construction because of Norman Sisisky. When Virginia's military facilities came under threat of being closed during the base closings of the 1990s, Congressman Sisisky successfully protected Fort Lee and other bases in Virginia that have been critical to the readiness of the Armed Forces. Norman Sisisky was also well- respected for his understanding of fiscal responsibility. He will be remembered as a committed husband, a good father, and a proud Virginia gentleman. He will be sorely missed by the Virginia delegation, his other House colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and others who have had the privilege of knowing and working with him. Our condolences go out to his wife Rhoda, his four sons and other family members, his staff, and especially Jan Faircloth, who has served him and the Fourth District for almost 20 years. Mr. Speaker, Virginia has lost an effective servant who will sorely be missed.

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, this is an excellent award. The public safety officers to be considered will be fire fighters, law enforcement officers, and emergency service officers as determined by the Attorney General. This award is an extremely important award. I urge Members to support the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 802. I am a cosponsor of the bill, along with many other members of the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill would establish a public safety officer Medal of Valor to be awarded periodically to selected public safety officers for ``extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty.'' It provides for the Department of Justice to solicit, to review, and to screen nominations from the law enforcement community for the award. Final decisions on the award would be made by the board, to be appointed by the President and bipartisan congressional leadership. The Public Safety Medal of Honor will be the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer. This bill will not only allow members of the public safety community to recognize extraordinary heroism within the profession, but will establish a mechanism giving that heroism the public recognition it deserves. I urge Members to vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time. I rise to lend my name in support as a cosponsor of the resolution my esteemed colleagues from Hampton Roads, Virginia, have offered honoring the 21 heroes who lost their lives in a plane crash last weekend. Eighteen of the men were members of an Air National Guard unit stationed at Camp Pendleton near Virginia Beach, Virginia. The men assigned to the Red Horse 203rd Civil Engineering Squadron provided support to the squadron's combat operations. They stood ready to step in at a moment's notice to assist in accomplishing any military mission. Whether it was building or repairing a strategic airfield, drilling wells for water, or building roads to move material and troops, they would complete these pertinent tasks under some of the most adverse and hostile circumstances. Just as important to note, the 203rd also answered the call when civilian local and State authorities required assistance when dealing with an unforeseen disaster or recovery operations. Time and time again they performed admirably whenever called to duty. These men were more than just soldiers, more than just volunteers that served their country. They were husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, sons, friends and neighbors. They had lives outside the Guard that we need to celebrate as well. They loved and were loved. They worked to better themselves and the people around them. They were part of our community, a community that will miss them. What they contributed is very typical of what so many National Guardsmen have to do each and every day. They served their Nation with pride and honor. Today we take a moment to honor them and their families for the sacrifice they have made for us and our country. It is a sacrifice and a loss we do not take lightly. These men were the epitome of both our country and the Air National Guard. The service that all the men and women of the Guard give every day is a part of what makes our country great. Madam Speaker, our condolences go to their families. I therefore ask my colleagues to join in passing House Concurrent Resolution 47 to honor these fallen men.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment, which would add several improvements to H.R. 333. While the proponents of the underlying legislation portray this as a compromised bill, the approach in this bill is, in fact, a significant departure from well-established sound principles and procedures designed to protect consumers. It eliminates the tradition of a fresh start for those who are willing to cash in all of their chips to get the fresh start. The underlying bill prevents most Americans from getting access to that fresh start and creates more people in our communities who will be financially desperate with nothing to lose. There are several amendments that I would like to speak to in the substitute. One, the underlying bill directs the debtor to pay all that they can after food and rent towards their debts. In calculating what they can pay, it is only reasonable that we base the determination on the actual monthly income. The underlying bill, however, counts all of your income for the last 6 months to determine what your average monthly income is, and that could include money that we received from a job that we have lost, money from an inheritance, or a gift, or an automobile accident settlement, things that are not going to be there. The court ought to have the opportunity to adjust your income to fit actual reality. This amendment would allow the court to disregard one-time nonrecurring funds or take into consideration the fact that you lost the job, and that is what put you into financial distress to begin with. Second, the amendment deals with illnesses for family members. The underlying bill allows you to consider ongoing expenses involved in illnesses or disabilities of family members, but it does not recognize new illnesses that may come about during the next 5 years. The amendment would allow those to be considered, too. Another amendment prevents landlords from evicting tenants pending bankruptcy. The tradition of bankruptcy is that tenants have a stay of all proceedings and they have an opportunity to work out some arrangement so that they can stay in their house. This underlying bill allows for immediate eviction. This would retain the tradition of automatic stay. Mr. Chairman, administrative expenses, they are limited to 10 percent to what is being paid in. If very much is not being paid in, a debtor may not have a reasonable amount to hire attorneys. This would allow for reasonable expenses which is usually the standard that is used. Mr. Chairman, another amendment would deal with the assumption under the private school expenses. The underlying bill says private school expenses are paid if documentation and an explanation is provided. It does not say that the documentation is meaningful. A ridiculous explanation could be given. The amendment says that the trustee would determine whether expenses are reasonable and necessary, not whether an explanation was provided. Mr. Chairman, these are just some of the much-needed changes. It will not fix the bill totally, but it would at least make a bad bill a little better.