Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, my question is whether the gentleman wants this amendment read under the present state of the Supreme Court interpretations or whether the amendment is designed to try to overturn Supreme Court decisions in funding religious organizations.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is exactly right. But Congress does not decree that one can get one's attorneys fees if one sues under a premise that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) agrees with. But if one sues on something he disagrees with, one cannot get one's attorneys fees. It does not say that. Mr. Chairman, this kind of amendment has significant constitutional implications. We ought not be taking it up as an after-thought to a juvenile justice bill that started out as a noncontroversial, bipartisan, constructive, research-based bill. Yet here we are, after 11 o'clock at night, talking about complex constitutional issues, trying to make law, and trying to make law in an unprecedented fashion, where we get attorneys fees if we agree with the gentleman from South Carolina but we do not get attorneys fees if we do not.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, do we on this side have the right to close?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman I rise in support of the amendment. As a member of the select committee, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the bipartisan manner in which they handled this very important national security matter. I would also like to publicly thank my two colleagues for offering our committee's recommendations to the defense authorization bill before us today. I urge Members of this body to support and accept the bipartisan and unanimous findings and recommendations of the committee by voting for this amendment. This language, the language in the amendment, gives Congress the common ground needed to enhance the Nation's intelligence infrastructure and prevent our country from repeating many of the episodes which occurred over the past few years. Mr. Chairman, we could take the next few hours taking partisan potshots that criticize this agency or that administration or in fact any Congress over the last 20 years for not taking any of the perceived and real espionage threats seriously. However, I believe that this House can contribute much more to our country today and begin to move forward by focusing on fixing the problem, rather than casting blame. This amendment addresses a number of concerns and offers several steps to strengthen this country's national security. This is a strong bipartisan constructive effort to solve the national security problems that our committee examined over the past year, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bateman-Scott amendment. The amendment will transfer $100 million from the International Space Station for each of the next 3 fiscal years to the Aeronautics Research and Technology account. This amendment is necessary to restore deep cuts in aeronautics research and development programs as proposed by the bill. It is especially important when we know that several aeronautics R&D programs were cut, in large part in order to fund continued cost overruns for the Space Station. We know that the Nation's aeronautics research program are in serious decline. The proposed FY 2000 NASA budget decreases an already underfunded aeronautics research effort by an additional 33 percent. Mr. Chairman, we know that dollar-for-dollar investments in aeronautics research pay off. This is because aeronautics is the second largest industry in terms of positive balance of trade, second only to agriculture, and that goes back and forth every year. That is directly attributable to our past investments in aeronautics research. Every aircraft worldwide uses NASA technology. For example, engineering principles developed from this research have contributed to overall aircraft safety and efficiency, including things like wing design, noise abatement, structural integrity and fuel efficiency. Such improvements are part of every aircraft in use today and are a direct result of our investment in aeronautics research. Contrary to being corporate welfare, Federal investment in aeronautics research and development is vital because private companies are reluctant to fund this type of research when future applications of that research are unknown or will not pay dividends for 20 years. So our past and current funding of aeronautics research represents an appropriate and responsible Federal role. The steady decline in aeronautics has already had an impact on United States competitiveness. Less than 10 years ago, United States firms held more than 70 percent of the world market share of civilian aircraft sales. But today, Europe's AirBus has more than 50 percent of that market share. So while the U.S. has continued to severely cut research in this area, other countries have aggressively increased their investment. Japan, for example, will put $20 million more towards high speed transport research, while this budget ends our investment in high speed transport research. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support our continued investment in aeronautics research and development. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore expressing his opposition to the bill and a January 18, 1999 article entitled the ``Cost of Station Cuts Into Funds For Supersonic Airplane Effort'' in ``Space News'', as follows: Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Governor, May 18, 1999. Hon. Robert C. Scott, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Scott; I write to you on behalf of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency Langley Research Center (NASA-LARC) and request your assistance during this year's appropriations process in the 106th Congress. Specifically, I request you cast your vote against H.R. 1654. President Clinton's budget proposal, submitted to Congress earlier this year, drastically reduces, for the second straight year, funding for the NASA-LARC to a level that threatens its critical research initiatives. NASA Langley is a national resource that is based in Virginia. I believe, therefore, that it is incumbent on all of us in elective office to represent its national mission. I respectfully request you halt this proposed budget cut and increase funding for this facility that is vital to the economy of the Tidewater region, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and our national competitiveness. Over the last 2 years the NASA-LARC has been cut 24% comprehensively and the aeronautics portion has been reduced by 33%. This year, the President's budget proposes a cut of over $110 million and the reduction or abolition of numerous programs, including the elimination of two major programs-- High Speed Commercial Transport (HSCT) and Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST). If this proposal is not overturned, Virginia will experience a direct loss of over 500 aeronautical engineering jobs through the end of 2000. Collateral effects include a total loss of approximately $275 million to the Virginia economy and 1,900 jobs lost. Moreover, these effects will not be contained strictly to the Tidewater region, but will also be realized in Blacksburg, Charlottesville and Northern Virginia as well. The United States has drastically reduced federal aeronautics funding from $1.3 billion per year to $640 million per year--a 51% reduction--over the last ten years. In 1997, ``aeronautics products'' was the second largest U.S. export category ($69 billion) in our balance of trade, second only to agricultural products. While the United States continues to reduce its ability to compete in this market, other nations, such as Great Britain, South Korea, France, Taiwan and China, are increasing the amount of their investment in aeronautical R&D and are strong partners with their private sector companies. For example, Boeing has seen its share of the global commercial aircraft market go from 90% to less than 50% over the last 15 years. Airbus, based in France, has seen its share increase from 0% to approximately 50%. This comes as no surprise since the best aeronautic R&D facilities are now located in Europe. In conclusion, I would like to point out that in a dangerous world in which this administration has deployed our military personnel to a multitude of locations around the globe, the most important thing necessary to insure their safety is complete domination of the skies over their heads. The current situation in the Balkans is a clear-cut example of why it is important to maintain a position for the United States at the forefront of aeronautics research and development. Once again, I ask you to join me and fight to preserve NASA-LARC and see that it continues to play the integral role it has play in the economy of Virginia, in defense of this notion and the promotion our commercial interests in global economy. Very truly yours, James S. Gilmore, III, Governor of Virginia.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this is an important provision to protect consumers. The bill provides problems for consumers by making them chase around every possible person that may have had anything to do with it, rather than the person they bought the product from. It has a loser-pays provision where, if they do not accept an offer that is given and in court gets just less than that, then they owe the other side's attorneys fees. So they have to sometimes bet their house on whether or not they can get compensation. The limit on punitive damages in the bill makes it more difficult to prove the punitive damages. It is interesting that my colleague points out the case in Alabama where the punitive damage judgment was hundreds of millions of dollars. I would only point out that that case is still going on. It is subject to appeal. But it is also interesting to note the allegations in that particular case, where the allegation was that the company was just systematically overcharging consumers, just ripping them off. That is exactly the kind of company that is going to benefit with this bill if this amendment is not adopted. Those who rip-off consumers, those who act with a reckless and wanton disregard for the safety of others, those are the ones who will benefit by this bill if the amendment is not adopted. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would protect consumers and adopt this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would eliminate section 304 of the bill. That section, if it is not removed, would overturn the discretion of States to determine when and how punitive damages should be paid, and prescribes an inflexible Federal standard and process for arbitrarily limiting such awards. The bill overturns State punitive damage laws without any findings that they are inadequate or inappropriate. In fact, States have found punitive damages to be an effective tool in preventing and correcting reckless or wanton actions on the part of designers, manufacturers, and distributors of products sold to their citizens. One of the usual rationales for federalizing an area of the law that has been historically left to the States is that we want to promote uniformity in State laws across the Nation. However, this rationale is violated in this very case because States which do not allow punitive damages are not required to adopt them, and those with lower limits are not required to raise them to a uniform level. Therefore, wide differences in punitive damages will continue under this bill. There is no indication that there are too many punitive damages awarded. The standards in States for awarding punitive damages, those standards are very high as it is. Generally, they require intentional, reckless, and wanton behavior which threatens the health and safety of innocent people. In fact, between 1965 and 1990, one study only found 355 such awards across the country in product liability cases, and more than half of those were reduced or overturned on appeal. States provide for punitive damages because they know that the mere threat of a large punitive damages award discourages reckless or malicious harm to consumers. Moreover, limiting punitive damages awards could cause reckless and malicious defendants to conclude that it is more cost-effective to risk paying limited amounts than to prevent or correct the problems that they are causing in the first place. This was precisely the rationale employed by the Ford Motor Company regarding its Pinto. In Grisham vs. Ford Motor Company, it was found that the company determined that it would be cheaper to sell the defectively-designed car and risk paying damage awards to injured consumers than it would be to make the car significantly safer at a cost of $11 per car. Or we have another example where in 1980 a 4-year-old girl received permanent scars, second- and third-degree burns, when the pajamas she was wearing caught fire, and it was only after punitive damages were assessed that the company stopped manufacturing flammable pajamas. Clearly, the threat of punitive damages protects consumers from such profit-oriented calculations. In fact, in nearly 80 percent of the product liability cases in which punitive damages were awarded, the manufacturer made safety changes which subsequently protected future customers. Without this amendment, the bill will serve to protect those who would act irresponsibly because there is less incentive for them to take corrective action. Whatever Members' views are on the merits of limiting the discretion of States to determine their punitive damage laws, there is no justification for singling out the information technology industry for such treatment. It is clear that efforts to limit punitive damage awards and other provisions of the bill, such as limitations on joint and several liability, have more to do with pushing a general tort reform agenda than it does with addressing Y2K problems. Unfortunately, Congress is again allowing itself to be used by the most powerful side of a legal dispute in jerryrigging laws in their favor. Congress should not act as an alternative appellate court only available to those whose political clout is effective enough to cause a legislative change quickly enough to benefit their case. We have done that frequently in the past, and this amendment will allow us to continue to rely upon the States to know what is best to protect their consumers and the interests of businesses, and to balance those interests. Of all the pressing needs of Congress today, we should not be limiting the discretion of States to protect consumers. I urge my colleagues to allow States to continue to deter intentional, reckless, wanton, and fraudulent behavior by supporting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his work on this important issue and for sponsoring the resolution to honor the men and women in law enforcement who each day proudly put their lives on the line to protect and serve communities across the Nation. I also want to commend the Law Enforcement Caucus, particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), for making sure that the concerns of law enforcement officers and their families are heard in Congress. Today's law enforcement officers face numerous risks as they perform their duties. Last year over 150 law enforcement officers were killed in this country; and it is appropriate that at this time, during Police Week, that Congress take out time to salute these officers and their families. All week long, thousands of law enforcement officers and their families will take part in events around the country to honor those who have fallen and to salute the daily heroic efforts of men and women who continue to walk the beat. Mr. Speaker, this resolution comes at a time when many of us in Congress still feel the loss of two members of the law enforcement community who died last year while protecting the people's House. The names of Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut are now listed alongside the names of 15,000 men and women who gave their lives in order to keep our community safe. I also want to take time to extend my deep appreciation to the law enforcement officers who are currently serving in my home State of Virginia and to the families of those who lost their lives in the line of duty. Their dedication in preserving the safety of communities in Virginia has not gone unnoticed. This resolution correctly acknowledges the sacrifices of law enforcement officers who have made the keeping of our communities, especially our schools and children, safe. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for his leadership in advancing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this bill overturns centuries of well-established laws involving bankruptcy and the principle that those who are in financial ruin can get a fresh start if they pay all they have, with certain exceptions, to their creditors. Instead, they will be required for those affected to essentially be in debtor's prison for 5 years. Those who find themselves financially overwhelmed because of a loss of a job, illness, business failure, will not get a fresh start. They will have to pay every dime they have, after food and rent and a few other expenses, to their creditors. Now, that is not a fresh start. That is a guarantee that at the end of 5 years they will be worse off than they started. So if someone is stuck with bills, maybe a spouse had a business reversal, got sick, a spouse had joint debts and their other spouse leaves or dies, they will not get a fresh start. They will get no relief for 5 years. Now, let us not get misled by this means test where only certain people are affected by this legislation. All that means is that it is not a bad bill for everybody, it is just a bad bill for some people. That does not make it a good bill. Now, there are some technical problems with the legislation. First of all, the salary calculation in what you have to pay is based on the last 6 months. Part of the bankruptcy problem may be caused by the fact that you lost your job, and that calculation is obviously not effective. You may be forced to pay more than in fact you have as income. It includes as income disability benefits or veterans benefits which if you have another job you will essentially lose in the future, and it forces spouses to compete with sophisticated creditors for their child support. But fundamentally it violates centuries of laws that provide for a fresh start. I ask that this not happen in a haphazardly drawn bill that has technical problems and which is opposed by virtually every group of experts in bankruptcy law. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we defeat this bill.