Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, although this sounds good and makes for a good slogan, this is not good policy. First, this bill goes down the failed road of mandatory minimum sentencing. We have heard anecdotes from proponents of the bill suggesting that Project Exile, like the Shadow, strikes fear in the hearts of evil men. However, we have not been presented with any convincing evidence that mandatory minimums and Project Exile have reduced violent crime to any greater extent than the decrease in Virginia generally without Project Exile. This fearful shadow, therefore, is just merely a shadow. Mr. Speaker, mandatory minimums are bad policy for a number of reasons. In the March 17, 2000, letter to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Judiciary Conference of the United States reiterated its opposition to mandatory minimum sentences for the 12th time, noting that the mandatory minimum sentences undermine the sentencing guidelines established by Congress to promote fairness and proportionality, and that far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity because they require the sentencing court to impose the sentence on offenders, when sound policy and common sense called for different punishments. In addition to being unfair, several studies have reflected the discriminatory impact of mandatory minimums, concluding that minorities were substantially more likely than whites under comparable circumstances to receive mandatory minimum sentences. Like the emperor who has no clothes, Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence that these mandatory minimums have worked in the city of Richmond. The evidence has been shown that the violent crime rate under mandatory minimums is not affected. Several studies have concluded that. The Rand study, for example, showed that mandatory minimums essentially wasted the taxpayers' money because there were much more effective ways of reducing crimes than mandatory minimums. The mandatory minimums associated with Project Exile show no better results. The proponents suggest that the violent crime rate has gone down 39 percent in the city of Richmond under Project Exile. At the same time it went down 43 percent in Norfolk, 58 percent in Virginia Beach and 81 percent in Chesapeake without Project Exile. Even if Project Exile had some value, this bill is simply inadequate. According to the sponsors, only six States would qualify for funding under the bill, and even if 10 States qualified, the funding is only for $10 million on average per State, and simple math at $25,000 per year per incarceration would reflect that each State could only incarcerate about five additional defendants per year. In the city of Richmond we have over 3,000 people in jail today, and incarcerating a handful more certainly is not a serious attempt to reduce the overall crime rate in the Commonwealth of Virginia or across our Nation. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the use of this costly, unfair, ineffective mandatory minimum sentence. If we are going to be serious about doing anything about crime, we should take the common sense approach recommended by the Bipartisan Task Force on Juvenile Crime, which encourages us to use funds for prevention and early intervention programs that have been proven to reduce crime, and we should ignore the rhymes and slogans which are ineffective and waste the taxpayers' money. We can start doing that by voting against this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York, (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if our goal is to reduce drug abuse, the $1.7 billion could be used better on juvenile crime prevention and early intervention programs and drug rehabilitation under the Pelosi amendment than spending that money in Colombia under the bill. Now, we know how to reduce drug abuse. The drug programs are not perfect, but they are effective. A study of the rehabilitation program in California has shown it to be so effective that it reduced costs in health care, welfare, and crime so much that the State saves $7 for every dollar it puts into the drug abuse program. Drug courts have been studied. They send prisoners to drug rehabilitation rather than simply to jail. That program is shown to reduce recidivism more than just sending them to jail and is a little cheaper. So we know that drug rehabilitation works, and it is cost-effective. We also know that spending $1.7 billion in Colombia will not make a measurable difference on the amount of drugs consumed in the United States. Late last year, Mr. Chairman, the Speaker of the House and the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, appointed a bipartisan Juvenile Justice Task Force to figure out what we can do to reduce juvenile crime. We invited experts across the country to help us in this process. And all the testimony that we heard pointed to prevention and early intervention as the appropriate strategies to deal with juvenile crime. We did not hear anyone suggest that spending billions of dollars on interdiction would be an effective strategy for dealing with juvenile crime. We heard about early childhood programs and improved education and afterschool programs. If we look at $1.7 billion, we could build four $1 million boys and girls clubs in every congressional district in this country for that same amount of money, and that is $1.7 billion. A lot of it we could spend over and over again so we can build more and more boys and girls clubs with that same appropriation. We have heard stories of the tragedies involving drug use, and we have a choice in this amendment. We can do what works, what is cost- effective, the drug rehabilitation and the prevention and early intervention programs, or we can spend a lot more on a program which, at best, will have a negligible effect on the amount of crime, on the crime and drugs in the United States. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have the courage to vote for the choice which will actually reduce crime and drug abuse by adopting the Pelosi amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this time to acknowledge the accomplishments of one of Newport News, Virginia's hometown heroes, Michael Vick, who recently led the Virginia Tech Hokies to this year's Sugar Bowl. His leadership and humanity during this exciting battle of champions continue to make a lasting impression on the minds of many in Newport News and indeed throughout Virginia. Michael's talent on the field is more than evident. His remarkable athletic achievements as quarterback for the Hokies included being named Big East Conference Offensive Player of the Year and Rookie of the Year, Player of the Year by Virginia's sports information directors for the Division I all-state football team, and being named to the all- state team. To top off this impressive list, Michael led the Nation in pass efficiency and earned third place in the Heisman Trophy balloting. Although Michael has gained national prominence for his athletic achievements, he remains well aware that he is a role model to young people in the local community. As a graduate of Warwick High School in Newport News, he returns often to speak with young students. Michael encourages them to set goals and work hard to achieve success. In doing so, he displays humility and an appreciation for his own accomplishments. These are the same skills he champions on the field and in the classroom at Virginia Tech where he is a sophomore studying criminal justice. The City of Newport News will join with Michael's family and friends to salute him and celebrate his accomplishments throughout the weekend of March 17. These activities include a student assembly at his alma mater, where his high school football jersey number will be retired. The program also includes a recognition dinner and a community rally. In a time where we are inundated with negative media accounts of our Nation's youth and sports figures, Michael shines as a positive example that hard work, determination and perseverance do, in fact, equal success. Newport News will long remember his outstanding role as an athlete and a gentleman while leading the Hokies to a national championship game. I join with the citizens of Newport News, Virginia in looking forward to Michael's continued legacy of success.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. I would ask the gentleman if he will notice in the bill where crimes of violence are exempted, so if a defendant whose misconduct constitutes a crime of violence, that would not be covered. But any other crime, an actual crime or criminal enterprise, would be covered. So if we have a business perpetrating actual criminal activity, stealing people's money, that that would be protected because it is not a crime of violence; and they would have the benefits under the bill, limits of punitive damages, and if you are not stealing much from everybody, you would be limited to the actual damage, the little bit of money, and three times that of punitive damages against each employee, even if you are committing a crime. Would those people be protected under this bill?

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Conyers-Scott amendment which will simply conform the bill to its title and provide some truth in advertising and legislation. Despite its name, the truth about the Small Business Liability Reform Act is that it will reward all businesses, big and small, with broad and sweeping legal protections when they cause personal or financial harm, even intentionally due to defective products. For those parts of the bill which actually pertain to small businesses, the definition of small business in this bill contains no qualifiers pertaining to annual revenues, so even a billion dollar corporation, with relatively few employees, can still qualify for special protection as a small business. Furthermore, while this bill purports to constitute liability reform, the language is overbroad and covers contract law and other areas of the law not properly considered by the committee. So this amendment will first define a small business as one with fewer than 25 employees, as it has in the bill, but also one with under $5 million in annual revenues. Without this amendment, a company with less than 25 employees with revenues in the billions, an Internet corporation, for example, or a brokerage firm, could still be designated as a small business; and they could rip off millions of people for billions of dollars and still get protection under this bill. Second, this amendment would truly limit the bill to suits against small businesses. As it presently exists, the second part of the bill is a general products liability bill which notwithstanding the title of the bill applies to all businesses, large and small. Third, this bill would limit the scope of part one of the bill to product liability rather than civil action as the bill does. So the bill protects wrongdoers involving contract law, antitrust law, trademark protection and everything else. The scope of this title is unreasonably broad and expansive and should be narrowed to conform to the title Small Business Liability Reform Act. Fourth, this amendment would create consistency and uniformity in that all States would be required to provide for punitive damages under limited conditions set forth in the bill. As presently written, the bill unfairly disadvantages consumers, as it preempts any State law more favorable to consumers while leaving intact State laws more favorable to businesses in the area of punitive damages. Fifth, the bill allows an opt-out by States by statute. This amendment would allow the State to opt out by initiative and referendum for those States which also allow initiative and referendum in enacting laws. Sixth, this amendment expands the hate crime exclusion to include victims of gender discrimination. A hate crime based on gender discrimination is just as despicable as one based on race, religion, or national origin; and it should, therefore, be included in a definition of a hate crime and not protected by this bill. In closing, this bill sets some dangerous precedents as also it is dangerous to public health and safety. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment which seeks to both conform the bill to its title, as well as provide a remedy for some of the most egregious aspects of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong opposition to the Small Business Liability Reform Act and speak in support of the Conyers-Scott amendment when I speak later on. Mr. Chairman, there are numerous problems with the bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member and chairman to be, will be introducing that amendment later. But there are some false inferences represented in the bill's title. The title is Small Business Liability Reform Act. While the bill purports to protect small businesses which presumably do not possess the resources to defend themselves against supposedly frivolous and costly lawsuits, the truth about the Small Business Liability Reform Act is that it rewards all businesses, big and small, with broad and sweeping legal protections when they cause personal and financial injury due to defective products. With those parts of the bill which actually pertain to small business, the small business in this bill contains no qualifier that limits their revenues. So even billion-dollar corporations can still qualify for small business protection. While the bill purports to constitute liability reform, the language is overbroad and covers contract law, antitrust law, trademark protection, and other areas not properly considered by the committee. Although the Conyers/Scott amendment seeks to inject some truth in advertising into the legislation, there are other problematic provisions. For example, the bill will raise the bar for awarding punitive damages, capping the damages at a maximum of $250,000 and making it more difficult to get punitive damages. While the proponents of caps on punitive damages claim that those caps would discourage frivolous lawsuits, those Draconian caps and arbitrary caps would actually apply to least frivolous lawsuits, those which in fact can get the larger damages. In fact, punitive damages are rare and available only when a defendant is engaged in the worst misconduct. This bill would effectively give businesses licenses to engage in reckless behavior as long as they are willing to pay the $250,000 price tag. Because the bill does not define a small business in terms of revenue, this may be a small price to pay for those companies who have revenues in the millions and even billions of dollars. The bill eliminates joint and several liability for non-economic damages, thus preventing many injured persons from full compensation for their injury. This bill would preempt laws in most States where injured persons are permitted to collect damages from any of the people that are found responsible. The rationale is that injured parties should not suffer because one or more of the wrongful actors cannot compensate them for a number of reasons. For example, that party might not even be a party to the lawsuit, they may be a foreign company, they may have gone bankrupt. And the non-economic damages, including the loss of a spouse or child, the loss of fertility, the loss of a limb, disfigurement, or chronic pain, those losses go uncompensated when defendants cannot be held jointly responsible for non-economic damages. Unfortunately, the burden of uncompensated non-economic loss is most likely to fall on those least likely to protect themselves: the poor, the elderly, the disabled. And because these persons make limited incomes and do not work, they are least likely to collect large sums in economic damages and, therefore, must depend on awards of non-economic loss if they are to recover any significant compensation at all. Again, there are numerous reasons to oppose the bill, but in its entirety, the bill sets a dangerous precedent in law. It encourages corporate misconduct, endangers health and safety, and leaves injured people with little compensation for their pain and suffering. So I ask my colleagues to vote no on this anti-consumer legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 2005 because it establishes a partial statute of repose. I say ``partial'' because it only applies to suits brought by employees. Supposedly they are covered by Worker's Compensation, but Worker's Compensation only covers 40 percent. Anyone else injured, killed or maimed by defective products can get full recovery. This partial statute of repose only applies to employees; and is, therefore, a mean-spirited application, just hurting the employees and nobody else. Now, the statute of repose is generally a bad idea because it gives a disincentive to manufacturers to make sure that their products are safe, and when they find out those products are not safe, they have a disincentive in repairing them. If you are late in this time period, say 17 years, you are better off just running out the clock, just letting the time run, because you know that you will not have the responsibility after 18 years. If you try to fix it, then you find the situation where the 18-year clock starts all over again, and therefore there is a disincentive to come and fix dangerous materials and let people know and recall the goods so that the workers will be protected. But this is just another mean-spirited attempt to deny opportunities for workers, and applies the statute of repose so that those employees who are killed or maimed will not be able to get full recovery. It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I would hope that we would defeat this bill, and let the law stand as it is.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, there is one point that I think needs to be made, and it can be made very briefly, and that is when you deny the employee the right to recover, if the Worker's Compensation had been paid by the employer and there is a recovery from the manufacturer of the dangerous product, the employer gets his Worker's Compensation back. So we are shifting the burden of the loss from the employee, who would get full recovery, and the employer, who would get his Worker's Compensation back, and the entire benefit of this goes to the manufacturer of the dangerous product, who could have in fact known of the danger, but because of this legislation did not bother to tell anybody that there was a fix that was needed. This not only hurts the employee, but it also hurts the employer, and the bill should be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a strong supporter of crime prevention initiatives and effective child advocate.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the problem of child abuse and neglect is disturbing and far-reaching. The United States Department of Health and Human Services, in a report issued in April of last year, indicated that there were over 950,000 documented cases of child abuse and neglect in 1997. Further, in an earlier report, HHS indicated that while the number of child abuse and neglect cases has increased since 1986, the actual number of cases investigated by State agencies has remained about the same. And, therefore, the proportion of cases investigated has decreased from 44 percent in 1986 to 28 percent in 1993. The failure to adequately address the problem of child abuse and neglect is costly in many ways. First and foremost, there is the human tragedy related to the victimized child. Obviously, abused and neglected children carry physical and emotional scars with them forever affecting every aspect of their life. In addition, the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse estimated in 1993 that the annual cost of child welfare, healthcare, and out-of- home care for abused and neglected children totaled $9 billion. And I must add that this is a conservative estimate in light of the fact that it does not include other related costs, such as long-term physical and mental impairment, emergency room care, lost productivity, special education services, and the cost to adjudicate child abuse cases. Yet another cost of child abuse is in the area of increased criminal activity. According to a 1992 Department of Justice report entitled ``The Cycle of Violence'', 68 percent of youths arrested had a prior history of neglect and abuse. The study also indicated that childhood abuse increased the odds of future delinquency and adult criminality by approximately 40 percent. On the positive side, Mr. Speaker, we know how to address the problem. The National Child Abuse Coalition reports that family support programs and parental education programs have demonstrated that prevention efforts work. As we have seen in other areas such as drug treatment programs, community-based programs supporting families can be implemented to prevent future child abuse at far less than the dollars that we now spend to treat and manage child abuse and neglect problems. The legislation being considered today is a step in the right direction. The bill provides increased grant authority for services to abused and neglected children and also provides an increase in the existing set-aside for child abuse and neglect cases from the Victims of Crime Fund. In addition to these important provisions, the Senate has included a new section entitled ``Jennifer's Law.'' The section provides for a grant program to improve the reporting for unidentified and missing persons and authorizes $2 million for that purpose in each of the next 3 fiscal years. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce). I would like to thank them personally for their leadership and bipartisan cooperation which has made this bill possible. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that prevention and early intervention treatment for child abuse and neglect victims benefits everyone. This bill represents a positive step in that direction. I, therefore, ask my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the lead cosponsor on this piece of legislation who has worked diligently and in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and particularly thank our two colleagues, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for their dedication to our children and for demonstrating what can happen when we work together in a constructive, bipartisan planner. I frankly hope that their work on this bill will be a model to the way we handle other legislation on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) to explain the purpose of the resolution.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce ``The Booker T. Washington Leadership Act of 1999''. This legislation will establish the Booker T. Washington Leadership Institute at Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. Booker T. Washington is perhaps the most renowned alumnus of Hampton University. His vision championed the idea that black colleges and universities should embrace the responsibility not only to train men and women in their disciplines and trades, but to create and sustain new institutions and communities driven by the principle of service-- service to God, country, and humankind. The mission of this Institute reflects this vision. It is based on Hampton University's fundamental premise that leadership development is best understood and achieved in the moral context of social responsibility and service to society. The Institute will be committed to the development of ethical values, interpersonal skills and the competencies that are required for effective leadership in a broad range of business, civic and political environments. Hampton University is uniquely prepared to launch this Institute. For the past 130 years, Hampton University has promoted higher education and positive character development as the cornerstones of effective leadership and responsible citizenship. Initially founded in 1868 to train promising young men and women to teach and lead their recently emancipated people, it has grown into a comprehensive university, offering a broad range of technical, liberal arts, pre-professional, professional and graduate degree programs. Over the past twenty years, Hampton University has doubled the student population from 2,700 to 7,000, and the average student SAT score has increased by 300 points. Forty-five academic programs have been added, including graduate degree programs in Business Administration, Museum Studies, Applied Mathematics and Chemistry, with PhD programs in Physics, Pharmacy, Physical Therapy and Nursing. Over 40% of Hampton University graduates enter graduate school within 5 years. The Booker T. Washington Leadership Institute combines the heritage of Hampton University with the vision of Booker T. Washington, to educate young people with the knowledge, skills, insights, and positive values necessary for leading the United States into the new millennium. Mr. Speaker, I submit the Booker T. Washington Leadership Act for my colleagues consideration.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present form.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to State that if this motion to recommit is passed, we will immediately consider final passage. So adopting the motion to recommit will not defeat the bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple amendment. The bill provides that religious organizations which sponsor fatherhood programs with Federal funds may discriminate in hiring based on religious affiliation. The amendment in the motion to recommit provides that hiring with Federal funds cannot be based on religion. The motion to recommit provides that civil rights laws will apply to these Federal funds. Mr. Speaker, the idea that religious bigotry may take place with Federal funds is not speculative. The bill, without this amendment, specifically provides that religious sponsors are not covered by title VII of the Civil Rights Act against discrimination based on religion. Mr. Speaker, during the prior debate on charitable choice, we heard how this would work. Cited on page H4687 of the Congressional Record, June 22, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) asked the 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. The response from the supporter of charitable choice, which was never disputed during that debate and was frankly validated during today's debate, was and I quote: ``A Jewish organization can fire a Protestant if they choose.'' 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 that a Catholic could not be elected President. And before the civil rights laws of 1960s, people of certain religions routinely suffered invidious discrimination when they sought employment. Fortunately, the civil rights laws of the 1960s put an end to that practice, and we no longer see signs suggesting that those of certain religions need not apply for jobs. Now, when those civil rights laws passed, there was one common sense exception that allowed religious organizations to discriminate based on religion when, for example, a Catholic church hired a priest. They could, of course, require that the job applicant be Catholic. Or a Jewish synagogue hiring a rabbi, they can, of course, require that the applicant be Jewish. But, Mr. Speaker, that exemption applies to the use of the private funds of the religious organizations. It was never expected to be applied to Federal funds used in a discriminatory manner. Now, the sponsor of the bill may say that we need to honor the religious integrity of the sponsor. That is fine for the church funds, but we should not use Federal funds in a discriminatory manner. Religious organizations now sponsor Federal programs. Catholic Charities sponsor federally funded services, but one does not have to be Catholic to get a job with those programs, because the civil rights laws apply to those Federal funds. The Lutheran Services of America sponsor federally funded services, but one does not have to be Lutheran to get a job paid for with those Federal funds. This bill grants a new exemption and would allow religious bigotry to be practiced with the use of Federal funds. That is wrong. The motion to recommit guarantees that those who apply for jobs paid for with Federal dollars will not have to suffer the indignity of invidious discrimination based on their religious beliefs. So I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Edwards amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple. It just conforms the bill to the First Amendment of the Constitution as interpreted by a long line of Supreme Court decisions. Many religiously affiliated groups now sponsor Federal programs, but the program must be administered in a secular manner and not conducted in a pervasively sectarian manner. And so, Federal funds support programs sponsored by Catholic Charities or Lutheran Services. But they do not have to be Catholic or Lutheran to benefit from those services. And if they want to compete for a job funded by those Federal dollars, they do not have to be Catholic or Lutheran to be hired. This bill, without the Edwards amendment, allows Federal funds to sponsor pervasively sectarian activities and allows sponsors to require program participants as a condition of receiving federally funded benefits to require the participation in church religious activities and allows churches to discriminate based on religious affiliation in hiring employees with Federal dollars. That is wrong. It is unconstitutional, and we should fix it by adopting the Edwards amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for sponsoring the bill. I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his kind remarks, because we in fact did resolve several concerns about the bill constructively and today the bill should enjoy broad bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, 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 support of the bill H.R. 2336. Mr. Speaker, the United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1999 is the bill before us, and I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for outlining the importance of the U.S. Marshals Service and the provisions in the bill. This bill will change the selection process of the United States Marshals from that of appointment by the President, with advice and consent of the Senate, to a merit system appointment by the Attorney General. It is expected this will bring about an improvement in the level of professionalism in the U.S. Marshals Service and provide more opportunities for advancement among the professional employees of the service. As the gentleman from Alabama mentioned, a similar bill passed the House last year but was not taken up by the Senate. That bill provided for the appointment of U.S. Marshals by the U.S. Marshal. Some Members voted against that bill and expressed the concern that such an appointment procedure might dilute the progress made in assuring diversity and excellence in qualifications among the U.S. Marshals. The requirement in H.R. 2336 for the appointment by the Attorney General should ensure a broader applicant pool and a greater visibility and accountability to minority and female hiring concerns. The bill, H.R. 2336, passed both the Subcommittee on Crime and the full Committee on the Judiciary by a unanimous vote. No opposition to the matter was expressed during committee consideration to the bill and I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.