Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2780, also known as Kristen's Act. H.R. 2780 authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to public agencies or nonprofit private organizations to maintain a national database for tracking missing adults determined to be in danger due to age, diminished mental capacity, when foul play may be involved or when the circumstances of the disappearance are unknown. It also authorizes grants to assist law enforcement and families in locating missing adults; provide informational resources to families of missing adults and for other related purposes. The bill authorizes $1 million each year for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 to carry out the purposes of this legislation. The bill is named after Kristen Moderfferi of Charlotte, North Carolina, who at age 18 disappeared after leaving her job one day. Sadly, because she was just 18 her family could not benefit from the great work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. H.R. 2780 is designed to assist law enforcement and families of missing persons for those over the age of 17 in a manner similar to that provided by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Although we have not had hearings on this bill and I generally do not support consideration of legislation without hearings, I am familiar with the valuable services provided by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for which we have had hearings and support similar efforts for missing adults who are in danger due to age, diminished capacity or foul play. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in paying homage to the brave young crew members of the U.S.S. Cole who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, as well as those who are still missing and others who were injured and, of course, the families of all of these fine sailors. Mr. Speaker, this is a particular tragedy for Virginia, because the U.S.S. Cole is home-based to the Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia. We were honored to have the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, both of our United States Senators, as well as all of the local congressmen in Norfolk today for the memorial service. Mr. Speaker, while it is imperative that we take swift action to bring those responsible to justice, we must not jump to hasty conclusions. We should remember that after the Oklahoma bombing, an innocent man was arrested for that heinous act, simply because of his ethnicity. When we determine who is responsible for this attack, we will remember President Clinton's frequent admonition that America takes care of its own. When we determine who is responsible, our response will make those who did it sorry they did it, and we will cause others who might be thinking of doing the same to change their minds. Mr. Speaker, all of the crew members of the U.S.S. Cole are to be saluted for their bravery and dedication to duties. These casualties remind us that freedom is not free. Their service to our Nation will long be remembered.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), in support of this important measure which reauthorizes the boundaries for the Richmond National Battlefield Park and establishes a memorial to honor the 14 black Union soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor during the battle of New Market Heights. Let me share with my colleagues just for a moment the story behind the battle of New Market Heights. During the Civil War, on September 29, 1864, near Richmond, Virginia, Union forces attacked an important and heavily fortified Confederate position on a low ridge overlooking flat open terrain. It was on this particular day at New Market Heights that history would be made. Soldiers then referred to as U.S. colored troops would assault the Confederate position, suffer extreme losses, and have 14 of their members receive Medals of Honor for their bravery in action. It is significant that only two more army medals were awarded to African Americans during the balance of the Civil War, and no other battle in the entire war generated 14 Medal of Honor designees. Until recently, the story of these valiant 14 African-American soldiers was scarcely remembered or retold, even though some have described this battle to be one of the Nation's most forgotten historic sites. With the assistance of my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), this legislation will provide appropriate recognition of these 14 men and will ensure that the battle of New Market Heights will be recognized for its historic significance. This legislation is also important because it responds to the concerns of nearby landowners who have worried about the possibility of having their land taken by the Richmond National Battlefield Park. For too long the park has had the ability to use the power of eminent domain to take property without the consent of landowners. This bill recognizes those concerns and removes the cloud of uncertainty and concern of residents near the battlefield by prohibiting the acquisition of land without the consent of landowners. Furthermore, the bill responds to other concerns that the technical boundaries of the park cover a lot more land than is necessary. The bill significantly reduces the area designated for potential use by the park to cover only that land which has been determined to have historic significance. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5225 responds to the concerns of landowners in Henrico County, Virginia, and focuses the resources of the National Park Service on the truly historically significant sites, and it gives proper recognition to the valiant African-American soldiers at New Market Heights. I, therefore, join my colleague from Virginia, with whom I have worked in a bipartisan manner on this bill, in support of the bill, and I urge its immediate passage.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, to state that we have no objection to this legislation and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and state that we have no objection to this legislation and join the gentleman from California in urging its passage.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would state that we have no objection to the passage of the legislation. We would particularly encourage the gentleman from California to locate other Federal facilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and we urge the passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5312, the ``Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000,'' which would increase mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses involving minors. While I certainly support any legislative action which would keep drugs out of the hands of our kids, this bill will not do that. Unfortunately, we are here again with Congress' favorite solution to crime--mandatory minimum sentencing. This despite the fact that scientific studies have found no empirical evidence linking mandatory minimum sentences to reductions in crime. Instead, what the studies have shown is that mandatory minimum sentences distort the sentencing process, discriminate against minorities in their application and waste money. In a study report entitled ``Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key or the Tax Payers Money?,'' the Rand Commission concluded that mandatory minimum sentences were significantly less effective than discretionary sentencing, and substantially less effective than drug treatment in reducing drug related crime, and far more costly than either. Further, both the Judicial Center in its study report entitled ``The General Effects of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences Imposed,'' and the United States Sentencing Commission in its study report entitled ``Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System,'' found that minorities were substantially more likely than whites under comparable circumstances to receive mandatory minimum sentences. Perhaps the problem with mandatory minimums is best stated in a March 17, 2000 letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States to Chairman Hyde, and which provided as follows: The reason for our opposition is manifest: Mandatory minimums severely distort and damage the federal sentencing system. Mandatories undermine the Sentencing Guidelines regimen Congress so carefully established under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by preventing the rational development of guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity and provide proportionality and fairness. Mandatory minimums also destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains to avoid mandatory minimums. In fact, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has documented that mandatory minimum sentences have the opposite of their intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity. Mandatories also treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner--offenders who can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society. Mandatories require the sentencing court to impose the same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences in punishment. The fact is, we know how to reduce drug abuse--its with prevention and drug rehabilitation programs. One study of a program in California has shown drug rehabilitation to be so effective that for every dollar the state spends on its drug abuse program, it saves seven dollars in reduced costs in health care, welfare, and crime. In addition, late last year several of us worked on the bipartisan task force on juvenile crime. We heard from experts from across the country, and all the testimony we heard pointed to prevention and early intervention as appropriate strategies to deal with juvenile crime. We did not hear a single witness suggest we enact mandatory minimum sentencing schemes. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5312 was introduced just two weeks ago by Representative McCollum, and comes to the floor today without the benefit of hearings or the opportunity to amend the bill. Thus, it is no surprise that it reflects an old approach which has been proven to be ineffective and discriminatory in its impact. For those reasons, I must oppose H.R. 5312, and urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today in the Arabian Peninsula the U.S.S. Cole was rammed by a small boat in an apparent suicide terrorist attack. Our prayers go out to the families of the sailors, especially the families of those sailors who were killed, injured, or are missing. Mr. Speaker, at this time we do not know who was responsible, and it is important that we not jump to conclusions; but when we find out, those responsible will be held accountable. Finally, we should congratulate our courageous sailors who responded to this tragedy. Because of their expertise, the damage and casualties were kept to a minimum. Again, Mr. Speaker, our prayers go out to the sailors and the families.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as indicated by my colleague, this bill will make permanent the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to provide security for its Justices, Court employees and official visitors on and off the Supreme Court grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court Police department was first authorized by Congress to carry firearms and protect Court personnel outside the Supreme Court grounds in 1982, and the statutory authority was scheduled to terminate, but Congress has extended such authorization and has done so five additional times. The last extension occurred in October 1996. It is set to expire December 29, 2000. It is clear that the security concerns that gave rise to the original authorization, including threats of violence against the Justices and the Court, will continue for the foreseeable future. In addition, I am not aware of any suggestion that they have misused that authority, nor should they not be entitled to such authority on a permanent basis. In fact, the evidence suggests that the Department has discharged its responsibilities in an efficient and cost-effective manner. For example, the cost of the program has been minimal. The Supreme Court police worked closely with the U.S. Marshal's office to provide security for Supreme Court Justices when they travel outside the Washington, D.C. area. Over the past 4 years, there were 74 requests for that kind of protection beyond the D.C. metropolitan area at a total cost of approximately $17,000, a little more than $4,000 per year. In light of the continuing security concerns and the Supreme Court police's record of providing appropriate protection over the past 18 years for the Justices, court employees, and official visitors, I support making permanent the Supreme Court police's authority to provide security on and off Supreme Court grounds. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in honoring three members of the Virginia Delegation, Tom Bliley, Owen Pickett, and the late Herb Bateman for their many years of public service to Virginia and to this nation. Madam Speaker, for over 20 years now, the 7th congressional district has been ably represented by Congressman Tom Bliley. As the three term chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee, he has been dedicated to the task of ensuring that our system of free enterprise in the United States continues to lead the rest of the world in this ever changing global economy. In addition to championing such legislative initiatives as the Food and Drug Administration Act and the Food Safety and Safe Drinking Water while chairman, Tom Bliley was at the helm when the engine of economic growth switched from capital intensive brick and mortar facilities to electronic commerce. The result of his leadership was the landmark 1996 Telecommunications Act which removed regulatory barriers to competition in the telecommunications marketplace. Madam Speaker, I have had the good fortune to work side by side with Tom Bliley for the past 8 years. Because we represent neighboring districts and share the city of Richmond and parts of Henrico County, I have been privileged to work with him on several initiatives that have been instrumental in opening up new avenues for Virginia commerce. Tom and I worked together to see that the James River and the Kanawha Canal river front project became a reality. This project restored a portion of the historic canal through the city of Richmond which is the main hub for the revitalization of the Historic Riverfront. And I am particularly grateful for his work on our bill which authorizes the Richmond National Battlefield Park. It includes the recognition of and support for a monument to commemorate the Battle of New Market Heights which was a landmark in black military history. We are both hoping that Congress will act on this important legislation before the end of the session. Madam Speaker, we also rise today to say goodbye to another good friend and colleague, Owen Pickett who represents the 2d Congressional District of Virginia. For nearly 29 years, Owen Pickett has worked tirelessly and selflessly for the residents of this community and this nation. Fifteen of those years he spent in the General Assembly and for 14 years now, he has represented the 2d Congressional District of Virginia in the House of Representatives. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, where he is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development and where he also serves on the Readiness Subcommittee, he has been a staunch advocate of military supremacy ensuring that our military has the equipment and programs necessary to carry forth its mission. And just as important, Owen has been a champion of the quality of life issues affecting military families--recognizing that servicemembers cannot effectively do their job unless they know their families are well taken care of. The military community in Hampton Roads will miss Owen and his steadfast advocacy on their behalf. As a member of the Committee on Resources which has jurisdiction for environmental issues, Owen has fought hard to remind his colleagues in Congress the protection of natural resources and the environment must be a national priority. Virginia Beach and the Chesapeake Bay are considered some of the finest natural resources on the East Coast because of his commitment to the environment. As we head into the final weeks of this legislative session, Mr. Speaker, Owen will no doubt continue to demonstrate his leadership in the House of all the issues important to us in the Tidewater and across Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to say a few words about our late colleague and dear friend Herb Bateman. If not for his untimely death late last month, we would be standing here today to also wish him well in his retirement with his departing colleagues--Tom and Owen. Herb was a conscientious and effective legislator during his service as a member of the Virginia General Assembly and for the past 18 years as the Representative of the 1st Congressional District of Virginia. Herb's leadership on the Armed Services Committee and in the area of aeronautics research funding will be sorely missed. His hard work over the years will have a lasting impact on the military readiness of our Nation's armed services and space and aeronautics program. Madam Speaker, while we may disagree on certain national issues, the members of the Virginia Delegation has always been proud of our ability to reach across the aisle and work together in a bipartisan manner on issues affecting the Commonwealth. During the 8 years I have served in the House, we have met once a month for lunch to discuss those pressing issues such as Base Realignment and Closing, the ports, and funding for NASA. There is no doubt in my mind that Virginia has benefited from having us working together on these issues. The loss of Representatives Bliley, Pickett and Bateman will be sorely felt. However, they have left the remaining members of the Delegation a legacy of bipartisanship and civility that will be long remembered.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the rule. While the provisions relating to addressing sex trafficking and violence against women are essentially noncontroversial and should be enacted, this does not apply to section 2001 of the bill which includes the controversial Aimee's Law. I am aware of the political adage that no good politician will vote against a crime bill named after somebody, but I thought that before we vote on this rule that we want to think about some evaluations of Aimee's Law. The bill is onerous, impractical and unworkable. It is worse than an unfunded mandate. It is certain to generate a morass of bureaucracy. It is enormously costly. And the probable public safety impact of the bill will be zero. These are not my words but the words of the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the United States Department of Justice, and a noted criminologist. Despite all of these critical descriptions, the bill comes before us on the suspension calendar hooked up with noncontroversial items. Ask your governors and State legislators whether or not they believe that it will help victims of crime or simply allow Members to take credit for passing a good sound bite while avoiding doing anything the experts say will actually reduce crime, that is, investing in prevention programs. Supporters of Aimee's Law say that it will prevent murderers, rapists and child molesters from committing second offenses. It requires the Attorney General to transfer a portion of one State's Federal money to another State each time a murderer or rapist released from the first State commits such an offense in the second State, unless the first State has either truth-in-sentencing or the person is sentenced to an above average time to be served. That above average can change from year to year. Since truth-in-sentencing and determinate sentencing are recent sentencing practices and there is no limit on how far back you have to go to find prior convictions, trying to determine the information necessary to implement this provision will be a bureaucratic nightmare for the Attorney General and the States. So the fact is that the provision has a lot more to do with requiring bureaucratic processing and exchanging Federal funds than it has to do with preventing crime. Aside from the impracticality of implementing this provision, even if the bureaucratic exchanges could occur, the net result will probably be a wash between States passing money back and forth. Further, States concerned about the fiscal impact of the bill or those wishing to cash in on it can play games. For instance, plea bargaining a high charge with a low sentence so that you can get the money rather than a lower charge like manslaughter with a higher sentence and you can cash in and get the money. The fact is that no State without truth-in-sentencing will implement truth-in-sentencing as a result of this bill. That is because truth-in- sentencing in Virginia costs billions of dollars and no State will incur that kind of expense to avoid a few hundred thousand dollars that this bill might actually cost them. All in all, the rule perpetuates sound-bite politics at its worst. It tacks on to two noncontroversial provisions; a provision which creates a bureaucratic nightmare for the States and the Federal Government by second-guessing the sentences on crimes that have already occurred with no discernible effect on the crime rate. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge that the rule be defeated, so that we can remove this provision and get on with well thought-out legislation which will actually reduce crime and help victims.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I think the gentleman's question really answers itself. The course in Project Alpha, and I have participated in many of the activities at the national convention and in classes in Project Alpha in my own home community in Virginia, and they teach responsibility, they teach abstinence, they teach safe sex; and it is done in such a way that they have the role models from the community coming in and explaining the importance of avoiding teen pregnancy and avoiding the sexually transmitted diseases. These kinds of role models, I think, can show that they do have a future. One of the high risk factors of getting into trouble is when young people do not feel that they have a future. They tend to involve themselves in more risky behaviors because they think they have nothing to lose. When they see role models and can see a path, particularly a continuum of role models, some of the older ones, like the gentleman, and younger ones, like me, and even younger ones, they can see that they have a future within their life. They see that there are jobs available and careers available. And to the extent that they involve themselves in risky behaviors, they place that future at risk. So we challenge other groups to get involved in the same kinds of interaction with our young people, because we can have a significant impact in keeping them out of trouble to begin with and keeping them on the right track, and that is why Project Alpha is so important.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my colleague and Alpha brother, for scheduling this special order this afternoon. I am delighted that we have an opportunity through this special order to talk about the proud history of Alpha Phi Alpha and its ongoing nationwide efforts to meet some of the critical needs of the African-American community. We have already heard, men of Alpha Phi Alpha have had a strong positive impact on our society in every profession and in every field of endeavor. I am fortunate to serve with many of our Alpha colleagues: The gentleman from the 15th Congressional District of New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from the 32nd Congressional District of California (Mr. Dixon), the gentleman from the 7th Congressional District of Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), the gentleman from the 2nd Congressional District of Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the gentleman from the 6th Congressional District of New York (Mr. Meeks). We follow the proud footsteps of Adam Clayton Powell who was elected in Congress in the late 1940s and many other Alpha brothers who have served in Congress and prepared the pathway for numerous other Alpha brothers who serve in public office at the local, State and Federal levels. Alphas can also claim three of the big four Civil Rights movements. So when one considers the members of this distinguished fraternity, it should come at no surprise that Alpha brothers would be in the leadership of addressing some of our most serious social problems. Whitney Young, Martin Luther King, Floyd McKessick were also in the forefront as Alpha brothers in the civil rights movement. They focused on the right to vote. As has already been indicated, one of the early slogans of the fraternity was ``A voteless people is a hopeless people.'' Because of this focus, the Martin Luther King Memorial is so appropriate, and we are proud to have an Alpha member so honored. We also must not forget the late Thurgood Marshall who argued the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated public schools and led to the fall of Jim Crow laws everywhere. That is important to note because education has been such a critical issue in the Alpha history. ``Go to high school, go to college'' was another early slogan, an early program in Alpha Phi Alpha. Project Alpha is another one of those important projects. Young African-American males today face many challenges, truancy, illiteracy, drugs, violence and teen fatherhood. And those needs need to be addressed. That is why the week of October 7 through October 14 will be Project Alpha week, focusing on Project Alpha. For some 20 years, now, Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity has worked with the March of Dimes in an effort to respond to the challenges facing young black males. Project Alpha is a result of this project, and its mission has been to create a national program to prepare young men for the roles that they will be expected to assume in their adulthood. In communities throughout this country, Project Alpha has created safe havens for young men to learn about and explore ways to develop protective factors to minimize the impact of the social hazards which are present today. Project Alpha provides education on sexuality, fatherhood, and the role of men in responsible relationships. It motivates young men to make smart decisions about their future and to take an active role in achieving their desired goals. It is a daunting task that Project Alpha has taken on. Young black men today face many obstacles on their road to adulthood. African-American males continue to lag behind their female counterparts in most measures of academic progress. It is particularly unfortunate to note that 25 percent of all black men can expect to have some contact with the criminal justice system. We know already that nationally 3 out of every 10 young black males are in jail, prison, on probation, or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system. While unemployment levels for African Americans are at an all-time low, the rate continues to be unacceptable in many urban communities, and this presents yet another risk factor for young African American males. By focusing on those 12 to 15, Project Alpha lays the groundwork early for developing the protective factors that reduces the likelihood of teen fatherhood and the associated risks that result from teen pregnancy. By providing positive role models from the community, Project Alpha teaches the participants about the social, economic and personal consequences of early fatherhood. And by reducing the rate of teen pregnancy, we are improving the likelihood that these young men will stay in school, stay away from drug use and other negative behaviors. That is why we congratulate the Alpha Phi Alpha in designating October 7 through 14 as Project Alpha Week. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my brother Alpha member, for holding this special order this afternoon. I applaud the members of Alpha Phi Alpha and the March of Dimes for their continued commitment to improving the lives of young African American males in the African American community and again congratulate the gentleman on holding this special order.

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman as well, and I would want to point out that the gentleman himself has been a stalwart advocate of civil rights and voting rights. Just yesterday, we had a special order involving voting rights and the importance of voting, and my fellow fraternity brother has been one of the leaders in that effort. I want to congratulate the gentleman on his leadership. He has a long history of public service, going back to local government in Chicago, and that certainly shows that the gentleman is a role model and an Alpha that everyone can be proud of.

Mr. SCOTT. I would just like to thank the March of Dimes and Project Alpha for providing this guidance to our young citizens, and I thank the gentleman for organizing this special order.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her strong support of this fundamental basic right, the right to vote. The right to vote is among the most cherished rights we enjoy as citizens of the United States. In fact, it is the cornerstone of our democracy. Unfortunately, many citizens have been denied that basic fundamental right. States first limited the right to vote to white men only with property, excluding women and racial and ethnic minorities. While the post-Civil War constitutional amendments secured the right to vote for those previously excluded, many States enacted laws designed to circumvent those amendments by erecting new barriers such as the poll tax and other schemes to deny that basic right to vote. Through the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other related legislation, we have eliminated those barriers and expanded the number of citizens who can participate in this great democracy. Here we are today, however, because a significant segment of our population continues to be left out of the process. Specifically, many States maintain barriers to voting for former offenders, denying them the right to vote in an election. A recent study by the Sentencing Project and the Human Rights Watch shows that some 3.9 million Americans are either currently or permanently disenfranchised as a result of State laws. Among those who are disenfranchised are 1.4 million African-American men or 13 percent of the total black population of adult men. The disparate impact on black adult men not only denies that group the right to vote but also limits voter opposition to unfair and discriminatory crime policies which result in so many minorities being imprisoned today. We have to put an end to this cycle of discriminatory crime policy which results in bad crime policy, resulting in the victims of that policy losing their right to vote and then they cannot complain democratically about the discriminatory policy and new policies are enacted. I am talking about policies like racial profiling where one picks people off the street because of their race or the crack cocaine-powder cocaine disparity where crack cocaine, which is a drug of choice in the black community, one can get 5 years mandatory minimum for a weekend's worth of crack. Ninety-five percent of the defendants in those cases are African American or Hispanic, while powder cocaine one has to get caught with over $50,000 worth before one is subjected to the same mandatory minimum. Once one is subjected to that, one cannot complain because one loses one's right to vote. Now, I applaud the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Millender- McDonald) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and others for their legislation to address this problem. It is a difficult problem because of the constitutional complications. Article 1 section 2 of the Constitution shows where you find the qualifications for electors. Let me just quote what that says: ``the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature,'' which means that the electors in Federal elections are those who can vote for the local State House of Representatives. The State gets to decide who can vote. Now, the Federal Constitution in section 4 says, that the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives can be prescribed in each State, but Congress shall be able to make regulations involving the time, place and manner; but according to section 2, not the qualifications. Now, the 14th amendment and equal protection clause says that the States cannot discriminate against people as they determine the qualifications except for participation in rebellion or other crime, which says specifically that the States may discriminate based on felony records. Now, Richardson v. Ramirez, a 1974 case recognized that felony disenfranchisement law does not on its face violate the Constitution, and so we are somewhat limited in what we can do. But the vote to determine voter qualifications is not unlimited. Rogers v. Lodge, 1982, held that at-large electoral systems are unconstitutional if conceived or operated as purposeful devices to further racial discrimination by minimizing, cancelling out, or diluting the voting strength of racial elements in a voting population. Now, the court identified a number of considerations. The presence of racially polarized voting, the impact of past discrimination on the ability of African Americans to participate, the lack of responsiveness to the African American community, the depressed socioeconomic status of African Americans can all be considered. And consistent with that, in Hunter v. Underwood, a 1985 case, the Supreme Court determined that Alabama's felony disenfranchisement law, in fact, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment because ``Discriminating against black as well as poor whites was a motivating factor for the law.'' Thus, the standard becomes clear. Any Federal legislation on this topic must be supported by specific evidence in the record as to the discriminatory intent of each State's statute, similar to the evidence gathered when we passed the Voting Rights Act. Findings which just show a possible disproportionate impact may not be enough. But certainly if we can find intent in those State laws, we can develop legislation. This means that in States that have no minority population, we probably cannot show that those laws were affected to discriminate against minorities, but we should have a hearing record to show which States in fact do. And we can target our remedy just to those States, just like the Voting Rights Act did where only certain States are subject to the preclearance provision. Those States were caught discriminating. We identified those States and affected the remedy just in those States and not others. So we need to have hearings next year and establish the record that we all know is true, that felony disenfranchisement has a disparate impact on black adult men, and exists in many States because of discriminatory reasons. Laying such a foundation will permit us to establish a compelling State interest for Federal intervention and permit us to narrowly tailor the legislation to address the problem. That legislation will enable those presently disenfranchised to fully participate in our democracy, and we will be able to craft legislation which could withstand constitutional challenge. Mr. Speaker, I commend the advocacy of the gentlewoman from California, the gentleman from Illinois, and others who have called this special order to expose the compelling issue before us; and even though the solution may be complicated constitutionally, we can work, because we must, to address this problem, and we must support our basic fundamental constitutional rights to vote. I thank the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3484, which would add to the already lengthy list of predicate offenses for which wiretap may be issued. While I am prepared to support some extension of Federal wiretap authority in these kinds of cases, I believe the present bill goes too far in extending law enforcement's authority to use a tool recognized to be so invasive of the rights of citizens in a free society that it can only be made available for use under circumstances specifically approved by Congress. Currently, congressionally approved wiretap authority dates back to the 1968 crime bill. The primary intent of the provision was to permit a limited use of electronic surveillance of organized crime and gambling groups, and it was envisioned as a tool of last resort even under those circumstances. The limited approach to authorizing wiretap authority was appropriate because what we are talking about is permitting law enforcement officials to engage in the unseemly acts of secretly eavesdropping on our phone conversations, conversations which include primarily private content, most of which will have nothing to do with criminal activity. Unfortunately, since 1968, the act has been amended over a dozen times and now includes over 50 predicate crimes for which wiretap may be obtained. Regrettably, a number of those predicates involve rather minor offenses such as false statements on a passport application. In justifying further expansion of wiretap authority, the argument now goes, if we amended the wiretap authority to add ``X,'' we should certainly amend it to add ``Y,'' which is a much more serious offense. As a result, wiretaps are becoming routine, rather than an extraordinary procedure to be used only as a last resort. Given the level of effectiveness of today's technology, wiretaps have the potential of being even more invasive. At issue today is whether we should add three new crimes to the wiretap predicate offensive list: Criminal Code Section 2252A, relating to material constituting or containing child pornography; section 2422, relating to coercion and enticement; and section 2423, relating to transportation of minors. Now, while I certainly support enforcement of these provisions, I do not believe that they should all be predicate offenses for wiretaps. The way the bill is presented to us, it is all or nothing. First, it is clear from the list of already existing sex crime offenses that much of the more serious activity for which proponents of the legislation are seeking to justify wiretap extension are already covered by wiretap authority or other confiscation authority and investigatory techniques. For example, sexual exploitation of children is already a crime that is a wiretap predicate. While I appreciate the majority's willingness to limit sections 2422 and 2423 to sexual activity which would constitute a Federal felony, the bill still includes the overly broad provisions contained in sections 2252A and 2423(b) as predicate offenses. Section 2252A includes, among other things, computer-generated depictions of child pornography. Now, the suspicion that someone may be generating filthy depictions on a home computer should not justify listening in to their private phone conversations. Now section 2423(b) makes it an offense to travel with the intent or thought of committing any sex crime. Thus pursuant to H.R. 3484, the bill before us, law enforcement would be able to get a wiretap where it learns that an 18-year-old is traveling from Washington, D.C. to Northern Virginia to have sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Now, I do not think that we have a compelling need to authorize government officials to listen into personal phone conversations when they suspect that such activity may be planned. Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated earlier, wiretap authority is so invasive of the rights of citizens in a free society that it must be made available only as a last resort. The more serious criminal activity for which proponents of the legislation are seeking to justify wiretap extension are mostly covered by wiretap authority or other confiscation authority and investigatory techniques already. Further, certain provisions of the bill are overly broad or simply involve conduct not serious enough to warrant the extraordinary invasion of privacy involved in wiretap authority. As a result, I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3484.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the seriousness of this offense, but I must oppose the bill because Congress should not be dictating and mandating sentences to the Sentencing Commission. As we know, the Sentencing Commission was established to determine the appropriate sentencing guidelines based on the severity of the offense and after giving consideration to all other relevant factors, including the proportionality of the sentence to other offenses. The review needs to be thorough and thoughtful. But this review, however, has not been thorough and thoughtful, because without the Sentencing Commission, crimes are considered out of context, and as a result, we have sentencing disparities. For example, this bill provides for a sentence of 1\1/2\ to 3 years for getting caught smuggling 24 aliens, while Congress has required a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a weekend's worth of crack cocaine. It seems to me that an enterprise involved in smuggling 24 aliens is far more serious than an offense of smoking crack at home, but we would be better served with the Sentencing Commission considering all of those offenses in context and avoid such disparities. The bill before us takes that responsibility from the Sentencing Commission and simply mandates that the sentences be doubled, a process which was neither thoughtful nor thorough. If Congress must dictate to the Sentencing Commission, we must at least assess the full effect of the sentencing changes Congress has already directed the Sentencing Commission to implement. In the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, Congress required the United States Sentencing Commission to substantially increase the sentences for alien smuggling. The revised sentencing guidelines have resulted in a 300 percent increase in the median sentence for immigrant smuggling from 1997 to 1998. Without taking the time to evaluate the impact of such an increase in sentencing for immigrant smuggling, Congress cannot know whether doubling the sentence is appropriate. In addition to doubling the base offense level for alien smuggling, the bill includes mandatory minimums if the defendant used a firearm. Unfortunately, here we are again with Congress' favorite solution to crime: the mandatory minimum sentence. This is despite the fact that research has shown that mandatory minimum sentences are both ineffective and unduly harsh. A 1997 study by the Rand Corporation on drug sentencing found that in all cases, conventional enforcement is more cost-effective than mandatory minimums, and treatment is more than twice as cost-effective as mandatory minimums. Furthermore, in March of this year in a letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), the Judicial Conference of the United States set forth the problems with mandatory minimums as follows: ``The reason for our opposition is manifest: Mandatory minimums severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system. . .. Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity. Mandatories also treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, offenders who can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society. Mandatories require the sentencing court to impose the same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences in punishment.'' Based on these facts, it is clear that we should not be expanding mandatory minimums. The better approach would be directing the Sentencing Commission to review and to rationally consider increasing the offense level for alien smuggling to reflect the seriousness of the offense. To this end, I offered an amendment to H.R. 238 which would have referred the issue to the Sentencing Commission for further consideration in light of the seriousness of the offense. Unfortunately, the amendment was not adopted. As a result, we are here today preventing the Sentencing Commission from doing its job. I therefore must oppose this legislation, because we are dictating new sentences out of context of other crimes 6 weeks before an election. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 238.

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. Mr. Speaker, this bill will have the short-term effect of reducing backlogs but will have the long-term effect of improving the lives of many children. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing the bill to the floor and thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for her advocacy in this issue. She is a former judge and is very knowledgeable on this issue. I thank her for her advocacy on behalf of children.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, while we seem to be making some progress reducing the overall crime rate in this country, crimes against children, particularly reports of child abuse and neglect, have grown by 41 percent over the last 10 years. In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act to begin the process for accelerating time lines and making other improvements designed to speed up the process of securing safe, permanent, caring families for abused and neglected children. Unfortunately, in passing the law, Congress failed to recognize the additional burdens of these time lines and other improvements would exact on the already overburdened family and domestic relations courts. Courts nationwide are struggling to meet the accelerated time lines and other requirements of that legislation and, as a result, there are substantial backlogs in processing of these cases. This bill, which is supported by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators, will help to further the goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act by authorizing $10 million over 5 years to assist State and local courts in developing and implementing automated case tracking systems for abused and neglect proceedings. It also authorizes an additional $10 million to reduce existing backlogs of abuse and neglect cases and $5 million to expand the Court-Appointed Special Advocate, CASA, program into underserved areas. Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with this program. They have several programs in Virginia. CASA volunteers do an excellent job in assisting children in the court system, and I am delighted we are expanding this system in the legislation. In sum, this bill authorizes a total of $25 million to address this pressing problem. I acknowledge that this is just a drop in the bucket of what is necessary. However, it will help to alleviate an overburdened family court system. And I encourage my colleagues not to stop here. The research tells us that children who experience abuse are four times more likely to be involved in delinquent and criminal activity than a child who has not been abused. Furthermore, those children are more likely to be arrested 1 year earlier, commit twice as many offenses and be arrested more frequently than youths who are not abused or neglected. But the statistic that should most concern us is that nearly 70 percent of youths arrested have a prior history of abuse and neglect, which means that we already have the ability to identify those children at risk of delinquency through child protection and child welfare systems. By identifying those children and providing them with appropriate intervention programs and services, we can drastically decrease juvenile delinquency. As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Crime, I must express my regret that this Congress has not made these improvements in proven crime prevention initiatives a priority. H.R. 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act, and H.R. 1150, which reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act as originally introduced in the House, would have provided increased funding for juvenile crime prevention programs and services for at-risk youth. These bills were loaded down in the House with slogans and sound bites posing as amendments and then buried in a conference committee that has not met for a year. It is unfortunate that this Congress chose to play politics instead of choosing to address the problem of at-risk youth in this country and to reduce juvenile crime. In the end, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the measure before us today. It is a good start and will provide family courts with resources they need to enhance their tracking systems and to begin reducing backlogs. I look forward to working with my friends across the aisle next year on juvenile justice legislation that builds upon the foundation started today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would read the bill, it is not in there.

Mr. SCOTT. During the trial, before the defendant ever has an opportunity to respond.

Mr. SCOTT. To show that he was not there, he was not within 100 miles, and the fact that he has AIDS becomes a matter of public information.