Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would think back to what I had said, if the person is innocent of the charge and can prove it, then I see no compelling interest to expose the fact that they have AIDS. If they are in fact guilty, then the fact that they might have an opportunity to be heard would not slow things down one iota. Mr. Speaker, basically if the other side had offered us 24 hours, even, to discuss the bill, I think it could have been done in the same form that Virginia did it, that gives an expedited opportunity to be heard and a right to be tested so everyone's rights are protected. This provides no such rights. If someone has AIDS and wants to keep that information private, they have essentially, under this bill, no opportunity to do it because that information would be part of a public trial. Then, after the fact that they have AIDS has been made public, then they get to present their evidence showing that they were 300 miles away and could not have possibly been the one who is accused of the crime. Mr. Speaker, this requires testing even though there is no risk of becoming infected. There is no confidentiality of the information. It is spread to a minimum of six, possibly dozens of others, even possibly more. It says attorneys for the victim, attorneys for the defendant, and that could be an entire law firm. There is no telling how many people would get the information. None of them are physicians. This bill should have gone through committee. I am sure we could have worked out legislation, just like we did in Virginia when I was in the State Senate, we worked out legislation like this. We could have done it with the Violence Against Women Act, where the law presently deals with this issue. But no, 6 weeks before the election here we come, vote it up or down. We do not have to consider any of this, we do not have to be able to review it, we do not have to be able to amend it or give people the opportunity to be heard, we just have to be able to vote it up or down. That is not the way we ought to be legislating. This bill is unfair and unreasonable. It could have been fixed with some minor amendments, but we do not have the opportunity because it is right before an election and we have to take it up or down, take it or leave it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, when I was a member of the State Senate, I worked on legislation just like this to give the victim the ability as soon as practicable to get the information. This does not have that. The gentleman is talking about an innocent person who is having their private affairs exposed to the world. What good does that do?

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, there has been no opportunity for the defendant to express himself or show conclusive evidence he is innocent of the underlying charge. The fact that they may have AIDS becomes public during the trial, before they have had an opportunity to be heard. The reason we are discussing this is the fact that before this information is spread all over the world, before they can say, ``It was not me, I was 100 miles away, and can prove it,'' it is all over the world. We would not be having this discussion if we could work this out so we could have meaningful confidentiality, some meaningful opportunity to be heard. There would not have been this discussion. It was less than one business day, no opportunity to be heard, no opportunity to comment. I will continue to read.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the information is also given to the judge presiding at the trial, and it provides that if the results are positive, such facts may, as relevant, be considered in the judicial proceedings conducted with respect to the alleged crime, by means that it virtually has to become public information in the public trial.

Mr. SCOTT. When I was in the State Senate of Virginia, we dealt with the issue and gave the defendant an opportunty to be heard so that we are not imposing this test on innocent individuals. The gentleman mentioned that there is confidentiality within the medical situation of the results of the test. The fact of the matter is that in the bill, the information is divulged not just to medical personnel but to the victim, the defendant, the attorneys for the victim, the atorneys for the defendant, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judge presiding at the trial.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Frankly, we would not be having the discussion if we had 24 hours notice in which to discuss the bill. I think it could have been worked out.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, that is why we asked for 24 hours so that we could work out some of these provisions including, perhaps, some kind of confidentiality, because the results of the AIDS test are being made available to at least six, and possibly unlimited numbers of, people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on page 2, lines 12 through 19, it says that the State shall require the following: an AIDS test if the nature of the activity would have placed the victim at risk of becoming infected or the victim requested the defendants to be so tested. So if the victim requested the defendant to be so tested, even though there is no chance of a transmission, then the test goes forward anyway. My question is, why do we have the provision that the defendant be tested even though there is no chance of them being infected?

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

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman advise why it is necessary or what compelling reason there is if the activity would place the victim at no risk of becoming infected with AIDS, why the AIDS test ought to be required?

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, an indictment 72 hours after the offense, including the investigation and the arrest and the convening of a grand jury is frequently done within 72 hours. Is that the information that we are going to base our consideration of this bill on? I know the gentleman is a physician and not a lawyer, and perhaps if it had gone through the Committee on the Judiciary, we would find that a lot of these cases the indictment comes months after the offense.

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to advise us as to how much time after an offense an indictment is normally obtained.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out, as the gentleman commented, that in an indictment a person has no opportunity to be heard. If we can prove that it is a case of false identification, we never have an opportunity to bring compelling proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it could not have possibly been you; and, yet, you are subjected to the AIDS test. The legislation before us also includes a provision that a person must be subjected to the AIDS test, even though there is no likelihood at all of a transmission taking place. The legislation talks about not rape, but sexual activity. That could be fondling. If requested by the defendant, the person could be subjected to an AIDS test.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Florida, in an indictment, does a defendant have any opportunity to be heard?

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

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3235, the National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of 2000. I am a cosponsor of this bill. Although we have not had hearings on it and I generally do not support consideration of legislation without hearings, I believe that the congressional record in this Congress sufficiently supports the passage of this legislation and to have its passage take place expeditiously. H.R. 3235 would award grant moneys to the Police Athletic League to assist the establishment of Police Athletic League chapters in high- crime and low-income areas as well as enhance existing services provided by the Police Athletic League. They offer young people opportunities to engage in constructive activities, including recreational programming and activities in creative and performing arts. I am pleased to note that research on these programs shows that communities with this program show a decrease in juvenile crime. In a survey of the California Police Athletic League, for example, preliminary data shows that communities served by the program reported a 34 percent decrease in juvenile arrests, a 58 percent decrease in aggravated assaults committed by juveniles and a 47 percent drop in the number of armed robberies by juveniles. In short, Mr. Speaker, the record reflects that prevention and early intervention as compared to other approaches to reducing juvenile crime and delinquency are the most effective. In March 1999, for example, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on H.R. 1150, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act. During that hearing, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention identified promoting prevention as the most cost-effective approach to reducing delinquency. At the same hearing, the Commissioner at the Administration on Children, Youth and Families at Health and Human Services also summarized what should be our priorities and said the following: The early years are critical. We know that and we must continue to invest in early childhood. But we must also stick with kids as they grow older. Children are like gardens. It is critical that we prepare the soil and plant the seeds. But if that is all we do, we should not be surprised if they do not flourish. We have to pay attention to them on an ongoing basis. Just as one would fertilize a garden, we must stimulate growth in young people. Just as one would weed a garden, we must root out the negative influences, peer pressure and self-doubt that threaten to stunt the positive development of our children. Especially during preadolescence and adolescence, we must have continued youth development activities to provide something to which the young people can say yes instead of just asking them to say no to risky behaviors. Mr. Speaker, as a result of hearings such as these, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education and the Workforce passed in this Congress H.R. 1150, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1999, which highlighted the importance of prevention and early intervention as the means of addressing juvenile crime. That passed out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce subcommittee with support from all of the subcommittee members. Similarly, the Subcommittee on Crime unanimously passed the first version of H.R. 1501, which provided for flexible accountability and early intervention approaches for juveniles before the court system with cosponsorship of the entire subcommittee. Additionally, many of us had the opportunity to participate in a bipartisan task force to examine youth violence. The task force reviewed the research on the problem of youth violence and heard testimony from witnesses from academia, law enforcement, the judicial system, and advocacy groups. I quote from the final report: Overall, the need for prevention and early intervention programs at every step is paramount. Since the most important contributing factor to youth violence is the absence of a nurturing and supportive home environment, we know that youth can be steered away from crime. Building strong relationships between children and their parents and communities are the best way to ensure their health and well-being. Mr. Speaker, experts who met with the bipartisan task force essentially agreed that early intervention and prevention efforts are essential to reducing youth violence. Furthermore, the task force concluded that such prevention efforts also require coordination and partnership with community organizations. In sum, the record shows that we know how to reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. We must focus on prevention and early intervention, and we must seek help from community organizations such as police athletic leagues. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3235, the National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of 1999, would foster much-needed community partnerships and help to accomplish our goal of reducing juvenile crime. I therefore support the legislation and urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would respond, that would include e-mail or any other interstate commerce, could mean you could take it across the State line from Washington, D.C. to Northern Virginia.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, in all due respect, I did not get an answer to my question. The bill would have an impact. I have not been able to determine exactly what that impact would be. But the point of the consensual sex was that they could be in bed not committing an offense and as soon as the 18-year-old showed some obscene pictures to the 17- year-old, then you would have a Federal crime. That is the present law. You cannot distribute obscene material. My question was, what would the impact of this bill have on that situation, because apparently there would be an enhanced punishment. I have not been able to ascertain what the enhancement would be.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000, which addresses in part the vulnerabilities of Federal agencies, which were exposed by the May 2000 GAO investigatory report referred to by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). In its original form, this bill would make it a Federal crime to enter or attempt to enter Federal property or a secure area of an airport under false pretenses. The person who enters Federal property under false pretenses is subject to a fine of up to 2 years in prison. If such an entry were done with the intent to commit a crime, the person would be punished with a fine and up to 5 years in prison. The bill would also prohibit trafficking in police badges, whether real or counterfeit. A person trafficking in badges would be subject to a fine and up to 6 months in prison. A person is, however, permitted to possess a badge or badges in a collection or exhibit, for decorative purposes, or for dramatic presentations such as a theatrical film or television production. Mr. Speaker, at the Subcommittee on Crime's mark of this legislation, I indicated that, while I support the purpose of the bill, I had concerns regarding certain provisions. Following discussions between our staffs, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), offered an amendment at the full committee which addressed my concerns and which were ultimately adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically, the amendment reduced the possible term of imprisonment for simple trespass from 2 years to 6 months, a term which is consistent with other Federal criminal trespass provisions. Further, the amendment provides that the felony provisions under the law require entry by false pretenses with the intent to commit a felony, as opposed to any crime, which the original bill provided. Finally, the amendment makes it clear that transferring, transporting, or receiving a replica of a police badge as a memento or for recreational purposes, such as a toy, would not constitute a criminal offense under the bill. Mr. Speaker, with those changes, I believe that H.R. 4827 addresses the vulnerabilities of Federal agencies which were exposed in May of 2000 without sacrificing individual liberties or imposing penalties out of proportion with the underlying crime. I, therefore, commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for their work on this matter; and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.