Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, there is a lot of good in the bill. But there clearly are constitutional problems with funding pervasively sectarian organizations. There are problems with the drug counseling provisions. In a letter of July 12 of this year to Members of Congress, the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors wrote the following: ``There is a strong national consensus around the core competencies that a substance abuse practitioner must demonstrate in order for them to be effective,'' and they go on to talk about the importance of State regulations, which is essentially overturned in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is in the bill a provision that specifically allows religious discrimination in employment. So we are faced with a situation that reminds me of the question, ``Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?'' Other than the provisions that are constitutionally problematic, other than the drug counseling certification problems, other than the separate-but-equal drug programs, other than the discrimination in employment, how do we like the bill? Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to vote against the bill, allow the bill to be amended so that we can enjoy the good and favorable things in the bill. 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, first of all, this is an awkward process because the bill was just printed up late last night, and we have not gotten a final version of it. I assume it is the same version that we saw a couple of days ago. This bill contains some provisions that are truly troublesome; and we are in the process right now, because we are under suspension of the rules, where there is no opportunity to amend the bill to eliminate the problem created by the charitable choice provisions of the bill. Now, usually, even if we have a closed rule and cannot offer amendments, at least we have a rule and we can argue about whether or not we should have had the opportunity to offer an amendment. But we do not even have that. We have to vote this thing up or down. We have heard comments about the good in the bill. The charitable choice provision is a provision that will allow direct funding of churches, and that creates a number of problems constitutionally as well as how it is implemented. For example, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in various cases, has ruled that we cannot constitutionally fund pervasively sectarian organizations. And they use several standards: one, whether or not the program is located near a house of worship; an abundance of religious symbols on the premises; religious discrimination in the institution's hiring practices; the presence of religious activities; the purposeful articulation of a religious mission. Well, if we look at those problems and then we look at charitable choice, where this bill will allow the direct funding of churches located near a house of worship, this is in a house of worship. An abundance of religious symbols. The bill specifically says we cannot require the removal of religious symbols. Religious discrimination in an institution's hiring practices. That is in the bill. They can discriminate. Presence of religious activities. It is in the church. So on and so forth. This is so clearly pervasively sectarian, and, Mr. Speaker, that is why many organizations have written us. In one letter, that came today, a group wrote, ``This charitable choice provision threatens the beneficiaries' religious liberties by failing to protect them from discrimination based on their refusal to participate in religious activities by a tax-funded religious provider.'' The provision further threatens to excessively entangle the institutions of church and State, and they oppose the charitable choice provisions. The list includes the American Association of University Women, the American Baptist Churches, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Congress, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Baptist Joint Committee for Public Affairs, and that is just through the B's in the list. That is why this provision should be deleted. Mr. Speaker, there is another problem with the bill, and that is the way it deals with drug treatment programs. By specifically funding the church-run drug programs, we fund in the bill findings by Congress, and let me read them so my colleagues will know what is in the bill: ``Congress finds that establishing unduly rigid or uniform educational qualifications for counselors and other personnel in drug treatment programs may undermine the effectiveness of such programs, and such educational requirements for counselors and other personnel may hinder or prevent the provision of needed drug treatment services.'' It further says that ``the Government shall not discriminate against education and training provided to such personnel by religious organizations so long as education and training includes basic content substantially equivalent to the content provided by nonreligious organizations that the state or local government would credit for purposes of determining whether the relevant requirements have been satisfied.'' That is a provision that has provoked a number of drug counseling organizations to write to oppose the bill, including the American Counseling Association, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Society for Addiction Medicine, and the Anxiety Disorder Association of America. That just gets us down through the A's. There is another provision in here that adds insult to injury; and that is, if a person does not want to participate in the church-run program, that they are entitled to be referred to a separate but equal program somewhere else. I think it is an insult to suggest that Brown v. Board of Education is not alive and well in America. But there is a final provision in the bill that I think is particularly egregious, and this is a provision that allows the sponsors of Federal programs to discriminate in their hiring based on religion. There is a provision in section 582(e) of the bill that says specifically that the title VII prohibition against discrimination in hiring based on religion will not apply to these programs. Civil rights laws should apply to federally funded programs, Mr. Speaker. The idea that religious bigotry might take place with Federal funds in this bill is not speculative. The bill specifically provides that religious sponsors are not covered by title VII of the Civil Rights Act. During the prior debates we have had on charitable choice, we have heard how this would work. Cited on page H 4687 of the Congressional Record on June 22 of last year, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) asked a major sponsor of charitable choice if a religious organization using Federal funds could fire or refuse to hire a perfectly qualified employee because of that person's religion; and the response from the supporter of charitable choice, which was never disputed during that debate or subsequent debates was, ``a Jewish organization can fire a Protestant if they choose.'' Last month, the supporter of charitable choice was quoted in Congressional Quarterly saying that ``organizations should not be barred from Federal funds because they are a Christian organization and they like to hire Christians.'' Mr. Speaker, there was a time when some Americans because of their religion were not considered qualified for certain jobs. In fact, before 1960 it was thought a Catholic could not be elected president. And before the civil rights laws of the 1960s, people of certain religions suffered invidious discrimination in employment routinely. Fortunately, the civil rights laws of the 1960's put an end to that practice and we no longer see signs suggesting that those of certain religions need not apply for certain jobs. Now, when those civil rights laws were passed, there was a common sense exception that allowed religious organizations to discriminate based on religion. When, for example, a Catholic church hires a priest, they can, of course, require that the prospective priest be Catholic. Or when a Jewish synagogue hires a rabbi, they can, of course, require that the rabbi be Jewish. But those exemptions apply to private funds, not Federal funds. Many religious organizations already sponsor Federal funds. Catholic charities will sponsor federally funded programs. But one does not have to be Catholic to get a job because the civil rights laws apply to Federal funds. Lutheran Family Services sponsors Federally funded programs, but one does not have to be Lutheran to get a job. Yet, section 582(e) specifically provides that programs' sponsors can look a job applicant in the eye and say that, although this is being run with Federal taxpayers' money, they do not qualify for a job because they do not hire their kind because of their religion. That is wrong. This bill should not pass with this. We do not have an opportunity to amend the bill because of the procedural situation we are in. This bill, therefore, ought to be opposed because it is unconstitutional, because it funds pervasively sectarian organizations. It ought to be opposed because it insults professional drug counselors by denigrating their professional credentials. And the bill ought to be opposed because it brings back separate but equal in drug programs and specifically provides for religious bigotry in hiring with taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, I frankly do not care how much money might come to my community. I am not going to turn the clock back on fundamental civil and constitutional rights. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Kanjorski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for the bill; and I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the chief patron of the bill, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), for their hard work and bipartisan and cooperative approach in developing this bill; and also to the staff of the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the ACLU who helped us craft this bill. The cooperative effort applied to this bill is a model for openness and collaboration which I would hope we would see more of in this body. The bill closes a loophole in the current law which allows some individuals to escape responsibility for criminal acts committed outside of the United States. Civilian employees, contractors and dependent family members of both civilian and military personnel who commit criminal acts while connected to overseas military operations are not covered by either the Military Code of Justice, because they are not in the military, nor by the Federal Criminal Code because the acts were committed outside of the United States, as was in the example that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) mentioned; nor are recently discharged enlisted personnel whose crimes are not prosecuted prior to discharge. Now, these crimes are technically subject to prosecution in the foreign country, but those who are attached to the military and commit a crime on a military base are generally not prosecuted by the foreign government who see this as a United States military problem, and they generally do not intervene. The bill fixes this problem by extending Federal criminal jurisdiction to these situations. It is my position that a United States citizen attached to military bases abroad who commits serious criminal offenses while living on a military base should be held no less accountable than they would if they had committed such an offense in the United States. It is also my position that those individuals accused of such offenses are entitled to no less due process and other constitutional protections than they would receive if the offense had been committed in the United States. This bill, as structured, effectively holds criminals responsible for acts and provides decent due process protection so that innocent people charged with a crime are considered for bail prior to trial and have a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and with thanks to the cooperative effort of those who worked on this bill with me, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank those who have worked so hard on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. First, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for their hard work and dedication in bringing this bill forward. I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and their staffs for their cooperative and bipartisan spirit in developing this bill and moving it expeditiously along the way. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act will reauthorize and double the funding for this lifesaving program. I can think of no better way to show our gratitude and respect for the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect the citizens of this country than to fully fund a program which may well save their lives and protect them from grave harm. Regrettably, as has already been mentioned, we have had more requests for funding than we have had funding, and this bill will allow us to meet those requests. With a proven track record of having saved thousands of lives since their inception, we should not only ensure that all officers subject to harm from gunfire have access to bulletproof vests but also all officers subject to stab wounds, such as correctional officers, are provided with vests that can save their lives. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I supported the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) at the subcommittee markup to allow funding for stab-proof vests as well as bulletproof vests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the original cosponsor of the legislation who has done so much work to bring this bill forward. (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair advise how much time we have remaining?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the bill. Here we are with another series of crime bills which, by their title, make it sound as if we are doing something about crime but really are not. This time, according to the title of the bill, it is ``Two Strikes and You're Out.'' This bill completes the baseball metaphor sound bites. A few years ago we had ``Three Strikes and You're Out.'' A couple of weeks ago we had the ``No Second Chances'' bill, which was essentially ``One Strike and You're Out.'' And although we have had no evidence that either one strike or three strikes did any good, we are now considering ``Two Strikes and You're Out.'' When we considered ``Three Strikes,'' we asked those who were supporting the bill to explain to us whether or not there were any fourth offenses that we were trying to prevent with the ``Three Strikes and You're Out,'' and we are still waiting for an answer. That was several years ago. A few weeks ago we did have a hearing on ``One Strike and You're Out,'' and we heard that that bill was onerous, impractical, and unworkable. It was worse than an unfunded mandate, certain to generate a morass of bureaucracy. It is enormous and costly, and with a net probable public safety impact of zero. Those are not my words but the words of the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, the Council of State Governments, the U.S. Department of Justice, and a noted criminologist. Notwithstanding that testimony, however, we passed the bill with an overwhelming majority. Now we have ``Two Strikes.'' It sounds like we are doing something about the tragic problem of child sexual assault. But this bill, if it has any effect at all, it might affect 10 cases per year. Every year there are approximately 100,000 cases of sexual assaults against children, 100,000; and this bill might affect 10, which in effect ignores 99.99 percent of the cases of sexual assaults against children in America. Obviously, we ought to be focusing on what we can do to reduce the chances that one of the 99.99 might be assaulted. So long as we keep passing bills that offer virtually no prospect of reducing crime, we will never get the opportunity to consider those bills for which we have research-based evidence that they will demonstrably reduce crime. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill so we can get to other bills that will actually reduce crime. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to read a comment from the United States Sentencing Commission, a letter to myself and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime dated May 1. This is from the United States Sentencing Commission: H.R. 4047, as presently written, raises some serious proportionality concerns. The bill would require a mandatory life sentence for any person who is convicted of a Federal sex offense in which a minor is the victim, if the person had a prior sex conviction in which a minor was the victim. This sentence could be mandatory for two defendants convicted of vastly dissimilar crimes. For example, a defendant convicted of raping a child under 12 using force, who had a prior conviction for a similar offense, currently is subject to a mandatory life sentence. Under H.R. 4047, a 19-year-old defendant, who engaged in consensual sex with a 15-year-old, would be subject to the same life imprisonment if he had a prior statutory rape conviction or conviction for some other prior sex offense in which the victim was a minor. The seriousness of these two offenses and harm to the victims could obviously be very different. I would just like that note from the Sentencing Commission placed in the Record. 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, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 4710. It purports to add $5 million to the Department of Justice's 2001 budget for prosecuting obscenity cases. However, in reality, if the bill passes, it probably does not mean any new money to the Department to be used for this purpose. Rather it likely means that money already appropriated to the Department, of that money $5 million must be devoted to prosecuting obscenity cases. We are told by the Department prosecutors that this would mean that they would have $5 million less to prosecute other serious crimes, such as sexual exploitation, such as child pornography, and other serious crimes which may be a priority now in order to pursue adult obscenity cases. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my colleague, says, the bill restricts the $5 million to obscenity cases, which may not include child pornography, and certainly does not cover child exploitation, nor drug conspiracies, nor organized crime, nor repeat sexual abuse, sexual molestation cases, like the bill that we just finished with would have had, which we could clarify to make sure that these kinds of cases could be covered; but we are under the suspension of the rules and amendments are not allowed. Congress should not be managing the Department activities to this degree of detail. But even if we did, it makes no sense to prioritize adult obscenity prosecutions which are allowed under this bill over sexual exploitation and child pornography prosecutions. Rather than making an assessment of the Department of Justice's funding, which they would need to prosecute all serious crimes, including obscenity cases, we are now taking this potshot approach which prioritizes certain politically popular cases of the moment at the expense of prosecuting more serious offenses, including other offenses against children. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of closing comments. We have heard a lot of comments about obscenity is illegal and child pornography is illegal. The bill, unfortunately, restricts the use of this money to obscenity cases, not child pornography cases. Now, if we had a hearing and a markup, maybe we could cover what we want to cover, and I assume we are trying to cover child pornography. But you cannot use the $5 million to prosecute child pornography, because it is restricted just to obscenity. We heard the case of the 9-year-old mother, and obviously there is somebody out there that ought to be prosecuted for rape. This bill is restricted just to obscenity. You cannot use the money to prosecute those rapes. So, Mr. Speaker, we have $5 million. It has got to be taken out of something. Nobody said we ought to be prosecuting organized crime less or child rapes less or drug conspiracies less. They have not said that we ought to spend $5 million less on that. Obviously the money has to come from somewhere. It is not going to be additional money, because we have already had the appropriations bill pass the House. So I would hope that we would not get into the minutia of the Justice Department budget and take money from an area, when we have not said where it is coming from, particularly when it could be coming from the prosecutions that we wanted prosecuted, like child pornography, which is illegal, but which you can use this money for. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy), who has done so much work on this important issue affecting her district, be allowed to control the time on this side.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) in commending H.R. 1800, the Death In Custody Act of 2000, to the Members of the House. We have worked together in developing this issue for the past 5 years, and I even worked with Senator Tim Hutchinson from Arkansas on this issue when he was a Member of the House. This bill simply requires that deaths in State and local police custody be reported to the attorney general. A similar measure was adopted by the House on a voice vote without opposition in the 1995 Crime Bill, but it was adjusted in conference to simply require this Department of Justice to study the feasibility of requiring localities to report deaths in custody. The Department has now said that reporting deaths in custody is feasible. Of course, I would hate to think that there are any jurisdictions with so many deaths in custody that it would not be feasible to report them. Dating back to my experiences as a State legislator, I have always been concerned that there was no national system for accounting for deaths in law enforcement custody. As detailed in an exhaustive, year- long investigative report by the Asbury Press in New Jersey, about 1,000 such deaths occur each year. Many of these deaths occur under suspicious circumstances. While most are listed as ``suicides,'' many, the Asbury Press reports, are ``tainted with racial overtones, good- ole-boy conspiracies and coverups, or investigative incompetence.'' The problem is that, with no one looking at these deaths from a systematic point of view, we do not know whether there is any pattern or practice relating to such deaths nor whether there is any training needed amongst law enforcement officials which could limit such occurrences or anything else. In fact, without such information, the debate on the issue is relegated to: ``There's a problem; No, there isn't; Yes, there is,'' with both sides yelling at each other and little or no actual information being the basis of the discussion. Regular reports of deaths in custody will allow us to get a handle on the nature and extent of what I believe to be a serious problem; we just do not know the extent. Let us hope that, at a minimum, the knowledge that a report is required to the Justice Department of all deaths in custody, and something brief about their circumstances, will discourage the misconduct, or questionable conduct, against those in custody by their custodians. And, furthermore, to the extent there may be common elements to these deaths, we will be in a much better position to prevent them in the future. This is a modest proposal, and I urge Members of the House to support the bill. Madam 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 rise in opposition to the resolution, which encourages States and localities to promote ``In God We Trust'' I guess in public buildings. Mr. Speaker, we have had no hearings on this resolution. In fact, the final version of the resolution that I received has a date stamp on it, July 24, 5:11 p.m., which was just a few minutes ago the final version that we are considering now was produced. It was not even introduced until 2 weeks ago, and now here we are considering it. This is a complicated issue when we start talking about religious freedoms. And my colleagues can notice by some of the recent Supreme Court cases, many of them 5-4, some going one way and then in the next case going the other way. We have had recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, just the Texas case where they threw out the school prayer on football games on a 6-3 vote. This is a complicated issue. There are no easy answers to this. And here we are at a very short notice trying to consider this. Mr. Speaker, I feel very sensitive to this because I come from Virginia. Virginia led the Nation in religious freedom. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was the basis for the First Amendment Bill of Rights. And so, I do not take this casually. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we assumed the role of the United States Supreme Court when we declared that the Ohio statute, the Ohio motto which had religious implications, was constitutional. That was an interesting exercise in light of Marbury v. Madison, a case decided by the Supreme Court a couple of centuries ago which stated that it was the Supreme Court's responsibility to declare statutes constitutional or not constitutional, not Congress's. But, in any case, with the emergency, no hearings, here we are on the floor. We are not trying to improve Medicare with prescription drugs. We are not trying to preserve Social Security. We are not doing anything about HMO reform or juvenile crime or background checks for firearm purchases. We are here with this emergency legislation, without any hearings here on the floor, no markup in committee so that these complicated Supreme Court decisions can be analyzed so that we will know what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, this is not unusual for this Congress. We have shown a lot of disrespect for the Constitution. As a matter of fact, in the last 2 years or so, we have tried to amend the Constitution no less than nine separate times. We had a prayer amendment that was given consideration, campaign finance, the flag amendment, balanced budget amendment, tax limitation amendment, term limits, electoral college, victims' rights. We even had a hearing on an amendment to make it easier to amend the Constitution. The Constitution is a foundation of American law that we all have to live under. But, of course, some people seem so privileged that they do not have to live under the same laws and same Constitution as everybody else. In fact, just this session, when we had a case where a bank lost a case filed by the Department of Labor, instead of being subjected to the law like everybody else, the Committee on Education and Workforce reported a bill to retroactively change the law to help that bank out. A few years ago, we settled a complex child custody case with language found in a transportation appropriations conference report. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary recently reported a bill to retroactively change the law so asbestos manufacturers will not have to pay the bills run up by victims of asbestos related lung disease. Here we are, no hearing, 2 weeks after the introduction of the bill, pretending to give consideration to this complex issue involving our fundamental religious liberties. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that instead of this kind of drive-by consideration that we would show more respect for our Constitution and our religious liberties by voting no on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment about the complexity of this particular issue. A simple question as to whether or not you can have a religious display during Christmas season. We have had 5-4 Supreme Court decisions saying in some cases you can, in some cases you cannot. When and how you can pray in school. We have had cases that say sometimes you can, sometimes you cannot. The Department of Education in that case has published a pamphlet to show localities exactly what the state of the law is and how you can have certain prayers in schools, under what conditions, so that there is some guidance. We are inviting localities and States into this quagmire without any guidance at all, just inviting lawsuits. That is why we should show more respect for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights by voting ``no'' on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) whose district is affected by this compact, be allowed to control the time on this side.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the bill. Unfortunately, H.R. 3125 will actually do nothing to stem the tide of Internet gambling. In fact, the bill constitutes a significant step backwards for several reasons. First, it provides for extended Internet gambling in the areas of horse racing, dog racing, and Jai-Alai. And there seems to be some question about that, so I will just read from the bill, starting on page 34: ``The prohibition in this section does not apply to,'' and when we turn to page 35 it says, ``any otherwise lawful State regulated parimutuel waging activities on live horse or dog racing or live Jai- Alai conducted on a closed-loop subscriber-based system.'' That closed- loop subscriber-based system is about as hard to get on as opening up an Internet brokerage account to trade stocks. About anybody can do it. As a result of these exemptions, the bill will proliferate rather than prohibit gambling over the Internet, and that is because people would rather gamble at home rather than having to go all the way to the track. In addition, the bill will not effectively prohibit those gambling interests it actually seeks to stop because offshore the Federal Government has no authority to close those particular Web sites. We can tell AOL or another company to shut down a domestic site, but we have no authority to shut down something offshore in a rogue nation for which we have no diplomatic relations. That will give them essentially a complete exclusive franchise to run these operations. Lastly, the bill is not effective because it provides no individual liability. While it makes activities by certain gambling entities running the operation illegal, it does not make it illegal for the individual to gamble. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, is one that I am sure a lot of Americans will support. But this bill will actually expand gambling for horse racing, dog racing, and Jai-Alai. It will be ineffective in stopping casino gambling and sports betting run by offshore businesses and, as a result, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is more sound bite than reality; and, therefore, I must oppose the legislation.