Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in honor of the contributions of a distinguished American citizen, Dr. James Leonard Farmer. As we pay homage to our forbearers for their courage, wisdom, perservance and overall contributions to America, I'd like to formally salute Dr. Farmer for his efforts as a Civil Rights Activist. He has been instrumental in the struggle to remove legal, social, and political barriers which continue to impede the progress of African- Americans. James Leonard Farmer was born in Marshall, Texas, on January 12, 1920, the son of a scholar, grandson of a slave, and one of three children. As the son of a faculty member of various southern black colleges, the young James Farmer led a somewhat sheltered life. But as the old adage reminds us ``to whom much is given, much is expected''. Dr. Farmer has not only lived up to, but has exceeded, all anyone had a right to expect of him. The young James Farmer attended public schools in the south. He earned his B.A. degree in chemistry from Wiley College at the age of 18 and obtained a divinity degree from Howard University, graduating in 1941. Dr. Farmer refused ordination because of the segregation then practiced by the Methodist Church. Instead of entering the ministry, he turned his energies to social action, with the goal of destroying segregation. In 1942, along with a group of students at the University of Chicago, Dr. Farmer organized the first chapter of the Congress Of Racial Equality (CORE). The interracial organization's purpose was to apply a direct challenge to American racism by using Grandhian tactics of nonviolence. Dr. Farmer also organized the first Civil Rights sit-in in American history at a Chicago donut shop called Jack Spratt's in May of 1942. As a someone who grew up in segregated Virginia, I am particularly thankful for Dr. Farmer's organization of the ``Pilgramage of Prayer'' to Richmond, Virginia. The ``Pilgramage'' protested the closing of Virginia's public schools to avoid complying with the United States Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation in public schools. More than 2,000 persons joined in the ``Pilgrimage of Prayer'', which has been credited with a significant role in bringing about the weakening of Virginia's ``massive resistance'' program. By 1961 Dr. Farmer was the National Director of CORE. During this crucial time in our history, Dr. Farmer and CORE received national exposure by organizing the ``Freedom Ride''. The ``Freedom Ride'' was a bus trip through the deep south designed to desegregate interstate buses and terminals. Despite countless arrests and other harassments, the ``Freedom Riders'' preserved in their efforts and were eventually successful in the desegregation of 120 interstate bus terminals in the south. Since 1985, Dr. Farmer has been teaching Civil Rights at Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg, Virginia, as the Distinguished Professor of History and American Studies. He continues to do so at the age of 78. On Jan 15, 1998, Dr. Farmer was bestowed the country's highest civilian honor by President Bill Clinton: the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I can think of no individual more deserving of such an honor. Frederick Douglass once said ``Men may not get all they pay for in this World, but they must certainly pay for all they get.'' Mr. Speaker, Dr. Farmer may not have gotten all that he paid for, but with the life of service and commitment he has given us, I have no doubt that he has paid for all that he has gotten. Thank you, Dr. James Leonard Farmer, for all that you have given us.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we know exactly what will happen if this amendment is passed. Similar legislation was passed before and the result is always the same. Opportunities for minorities and women will disappear. For example, in Michigan, when they eliminated their program, minority businesses were totally shut out of billions of dollars of State contracting dollars. Mr. Chairman, we do not live in a color-blind world. According to a study by the Department of Transportation, a white-owned construction firm will likely receive 50 times more bonding authority than an identically situated black-owned firm. In addition, we know that minorities and women are discriminated against in access to capital and are still excluded from many business opportunities and social circles where many important business decisions take place. That is why white males who represent one-third of the population already get over 90 percent of the contracts. This amendment does nothing to deal with that vile discrimination. We can dress up this amendment by describing it in glowing rhetorical terms, but we know what it will do. It will devastate the future opportunities for minorities and women. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2294, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1997. This bipartisan legislation is the result of a long list of desired changes from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), my subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, for working together to produce a bipartisan bill that all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary could agree to. Among other provisions included in this bill is an amendment to 28 U.S.C. to authorize reimbursements to the judicial branch out of funds in the Justice Department Asset Forfeiture Fund and the Department of the Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund for certain expenses incurred by the judicial branch in connection with the adjudications of asset forfeitures. Section 303 provides that a U.S. magistrate judge shall be given the power to exercise contempt authority within the territorial jurisdiction prescribed by his or her appointment. Another important element of this legislation is that it reauthorizes appropriations for fiscal year 1998 and subsequent years such sums as may be necessary to carry out the drug and alcohol after care program for Federal offenders administered by the probation and pretrial services division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. This legislation also eliminates exemptions for members of State and local fire or police departments and public officers of Federal and State governments from Federal jury service. Lastly, the bill extends Federal Employees' Compensation Act protections to jurors while they are traveling to and from court. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2696, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. This legislation creates a new design patent for vessel hulls. Confusion between copyright patent and trademark protection for hull models over the years has apparently produced a proliferation of unattributed and bad copies of expensive designs, and this legislation articulates clearer standards for the grant of a design patent. This industrial design problem is illustrated in the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Bonito Boats, effectively denying intellectual property protection for a Florida boat designer because of the contrary Florida State law. Here, I agree with the subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Coble, in that it is important that we send a message that when it comes to theft of patents and trademarks, it is necessary for Congress to set a predictable and uniform Federal rule. The Patent and Trademark Office does not have a formal view on this bill; but, as a general policy, they prefer not to enumerate subgroups of patents. Nevertheless, they do not oppose this legislation. Finally, I would like to thank the Chairman for his cooperation and kind assistance by adding clarifying language that exempts vessels more than 200 feet. This language, while maintaining copyright protection of smaller vessels, will not interfere with the commercial practices of the industry for larger vessels, and that is a very significant concern in my congressional district. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. 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. Mr. Speaker, as a result of a recent study on the lobbying disclosure reports, we now know that special interest groups are spending approximately $100 million a month to lobby the Federal Government. Before the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, there were no requirements in place that would have made this information available. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing inherently wrong with those who petition their government. In fact, we ought to be encouraging more participation in the democratic process. But the public is entitled to have an idea of how much money is being spent by groups as they advance their particular interests. Mr. Speaker, the Lobbying Disclosure Act was the first legislation to reform lobbying activities in any substantial way since the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946. Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, individuals and organizations who lobby the Federal Government are no longer exempt from reporting and disclosure requirements. Professional lobbyists are now required to disclose who pays them, how much to lobby the Federal Government, that is Congress and the executive branch, and on what issues. The LDA has been very successful in providing understandable requirements for lobbyists, as well as providing important information to the public about lobbying activities. S. 758 addresses several technical issues which have been raised during the implementation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. The original House version, H.R. 3435, which was cosponsored by my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and I would like to at this point congratulate both of them for working in a bipartisan manner to fashion legislation that everyone could agree on. Mr. Speaker, that bill passed the Committee on the Judiciary by a unanimous rollcall vote of 25 to 0 and then passed the House without opposition. In the Senate, two provisions were removed from the legislation. Both sides have agreed, however, that the removal of these two provisions, which were removed at the urging of several Senators, was not enough to warrant reconsideration of the legislation. One provision which was removed from the original version would have simplified the manner in which U.S. multinational companies disclosed information about their subsidiaries or other related entities with a significant direct interest in the outcome of the company's lobbying activities. The second provision would have limited the recordkeeping of registrants under Section 5 of the act by eliminating the requirement that the report contain a list of lobbyists for each general issue area and, instead, required the registrant to provide a list of all employees who acted as a lobbyist for the organization in one section. This change would have eliminated the need for organizations with a wide range of general issue areas and a large number of registered lobbyists to undertake the time-consuming task of discerning which lobbyists worked on which issues. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent; and I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 favor of H.R. 3117, the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1998. The United States Commission on Civil Rights was established in 1959 to provide the country with advice and counsel on how to best address our still complex and persevering problems in civil rights. Although the Commission was initially intended to last only 2 years, because of its importance and good work, it still serves as a valuable tool in our war against bigotry. In recent years the Commission has held hearings and released reports on issues such as church burnings, employment discrimination, police brutality and hate crimes. In addition, the Commission has made plans to study disability discrimination and the religious freedom in schools. The Commission's work on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is particularly timely. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in federally-assisted programs. After extensive study of Justice Department's Title VI enforcement efforts, the Commission concluded that the Justice Department's enforcement efforts were inadequate. As a result of this report, the Justice Department has improved its Title VI enforcement program, and other Federal and State agencies have made significant improvements as well. The Department of Agriculture has relied heavily on this report in its response to the problem of discrimination against black farmers. No other agency provides this crucial information. Without civil rights, without the Civil Rights Commission, one would wonder how thoroughly such concerns and underenforcement and noncompliance would be addressed. Mr. Speaker, last year, as the chairman of the subcommittee has indicated, the General Accounting Office released a report on the Civil Rights Commission. The report pointed out a number of management and organizational problems and made recommendations on how the Commission could best address these concerns. The Commission has actively moved to initiate all of the GAO's recommendations. Its management information system will soon be operational. This will allow greater accountability in program management. In addition, the Commission is in the process of implementing other GAO recommendations which provide, which will provide greater public access to the information and processes of the Commission and will better ensure staff compliance with Commission rules and regulations. The Commission has graciously responded to the GAO's recommendations, and therefore we will enjoy an even stronger Commission. Mr. Speaker, the Commission has some tough work ahead of it. I look forward to the Commission continuing its unyielding fight against discrimination that still divides this country. In addition, I look forward to the Congress's full and continued support of the Civil Rights Commission. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, for his efforts and work in a bipartisan nature to make sure that the Commission was not politicized. We have worked together in this reauthorization effort. I would like to thank him again for working in a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered in order.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is on the same lines as the previous amendments. This amendment also provides a safeguard against executing innocent people. Unlike the last amendment, however, which allowed the judge to void the decision by the jury, this amendment simply proposes a way for the jury to consider the possibility of the defendant's innocence. I offer this amendment to exclude the death penalty as an option whenever the evidence does not foreclose all doubt regarding a defendant's guilt. In 1988, the Supreme Court held that a defendant has no constitutional right to have a capital sentencing jury consider as a reason not to impose the death penalty the possibility that the defendant may be innocent. This means that if the jurors are to consider the possibility of error as a reason to vote against imposing the death penalty, the law must explicitly provide for such consideration. Under current law, the jurors are told to consider a long list of specific mitigating factors as reasons not to sentence a defendant to death. These factors can include that the defendant is mentally ill, youthful, under duress or suffered impaired capacity at the time of the crime. The law does not, however, require the jury to consider the most basic reason of all for worrying against the imposition of death, the possibility the defendant is actually not guilty of the crime for which he has been convicted. The amendment would add residual doubt to the list of mitigating factors a citizen jury can consider. The amendment provides that the jury may consider any doubt that the defendant committed the offense, notwithstanding that such doubt may initially not be considered to constitute reasonable doubt. This amendment should be unobjectionable, even to my colleagues opposed to the death penalty. This does not take away anything from the power of the trier of fact, nor does it overturn a trier of fact's determination. This amendment merely instructs the jury to consider, among other mitigating and aggravating factors that they already consider, whether the jury has remaining doubts as to whether the defendant is actually the perpetrator of the crime. Again, this amendment will not stop innocent people from winding up on death row or even being executed. It will, however, offer another check, another way for us to say hold on, we better be certainly sure that a person committed an offense before we sentence him or her to death, at least in cases arising from violations of this particular statute. This extra safeguard, I think, is certainly desirable, in light of the consequences. When you vote on this amendment, remember that since 1976, 66 inmates have been freed from death row based on strong evidence of their innocence. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying that this gives us an opportunity to sound tough on crime but this mandatory minimum strategy has been studied, and it is one of the least cost effective ways of reducing crime. The highest risk offenders do not get enough. The lowest risk offenders get too much. This will provide more time for this offense than those who are convicted of rape, voluntary manslaughter, and kidnapping. The money that will be spent in this bill could be put to better use. It is 100 to $150 million a year that could be put to crime prevention programs, enhanced police protection, drug rehabilitation and a lot better uses than this sound bite that is in this bill, and I would hope we would defeat it. 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 say that when we talk about possession as less than brandishing, I am not sure how we are ever going to get to prove simple possession that was not brandishing. As the gentlewoman from California indicated, I guess that is for the family that spent all their money on lawyers to protect themselves from this falling on them. The bottom line, though, is that mandatory minimums have been studied and are the least, one of the least effective ways to reduce crime. If we are serious about reducing crime, if we are serious about it, we should not pass the mandatory minimums. We should use the money for something constructive. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation for several reasons, the most important of which is the fact that the penalties are out of proportion to the crimes committed. Let us compare these penalties to the penalties for other violent crimes: Aggravated assault, 2 years; assault with intent to murder, 3\1/2\ years; kidnapping, 4 years; voluntary manslaughter, 5 years; rape, 6 years. Does this make sense, all these sums, and add 10 years for possession of a gun in connection with a drug offense where no one was injured? Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for enhancements. The gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee, mentioned many of the heinous crimes. For those crimes, robbery, murder, you would get the penalty for that crime and these would be enhancements. Obviously they will serve many years in jail just for the underlying crime. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has strongly urged us to amend Title 18, section 924, in response to the Bailey decision, as the gentleman has indicated, but they have not requested any change in the gun sentencing penalty. In fact, they sent a letter to the Committee on the Judiciary declaring the existing penalty structure appropriate. The American Bar Association has opposed the changes in this bill. Mr. Speaker, in 1984 we established the Sentencing Commission to avoid the disparate sentencing, as is evidenced in this bill, 5 years for murder, 6 years for rape, and 10 years for possession of a firearm in a routine drug deal as an enhancement over the underlying crime. The Sentencing Commission should review these crimes and deliberate without politics and without political considerations to assess a reasonable penalty. That is obviously not what we are doing today. Mr. Speaker, we should also be aware of the cost of this legislation before we pass it. The Department of Justice estimates that over 30 years this new gun penalty will cost the American taxpayers between $3.9 billion and $4.2 billion and will require the construction of 4 new prisons. That is $100 million to $150 million a year. Last year the Rand Corporation studied many strategies for crime reduction and found that mandatory minimums such as those in this bill were one of the least cost effective ways to reduce crime. So that is another $100 million a year that could have been put to better use. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides penalties out of proportion to the crimes. It bypasses the Sentencing Commission and wastes the taxpayers' money. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 424. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the inclusion in the rule of H.R. 1428 and to the process, or lack thereof, by which this bill was brought to the floor. This is a very sad day in the history of the House. Although on even relatively simple bills we have generally taken time to carefully deliberate on issues and ensure that ample committee and subcommittee review has taken place in order to prevent excessively flawed bills from taking up our limited floor time, unfortunately, the process by which this bill has been considered has been markedly different. There has only been one hearing in the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and this bill is now on the floor. There have been no hearings on the Subcommittee on the Constitution to determine what effects this bill may have on Voting Rights Act protections. There have been no hearings before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security to determine if citizenship verification proposed in the bill is a practical idea. Because this bill has been not properly considered, we have no idea where the money will be found to create what some have estimated to be a multibillion-dollar bureaucracy. Does this mean that we are so interested in solving a problem that may not even exist that we will have to make major cuts in Social Security programs for the elderly and disabled? None of these questions have been answered, and we are still proceeding head over heels into a land of uncertainty and frolic. This process has been extremely irresponsible with the tax dollars and Social Security benefits of the American people. Considering our negligent lack of process, it is very difficult to dignify the substance of this bill. However, I will do my best to add my voice to the colleagues of mine who will be speaking against the bill tomorrow. First of all, considering that turnout for elections is now at an all-time low in this country, I find it odd that we put so much fervor into creating new barriers to voting instead of strengthening motor voter and other voter encouragement initiatives which actually inspire people to take part in this great democracy. Furthermore, this country's not-so-distant past of discriminatory enforcement, of facially neutral election laws should give pause to any knee-jerk efforts to strike important parts of the Voting Rights Act, the only shield we have from our despicable heritage of poll taxes, literacy tests, and a host of over facially neutral schemes that are designed for one reason, and one reason only, to intimidate and prevent minorities from voting. Although we had anti-discrimination laws and the 15th Amendment in the Jim Crow south, it still took the 24th Amendment, which banned poll taxes, and the Voting Rights Act to finally arm citizens with an ample set of tools to fight against discrimination in the fundamental exercise of voting. Today we stand poised to eradicate a delicate and important part of our hard-fought voting rights protections for an unworkable system supposedly intended to fix a nonexistent problem. Both the Social Security Administration and the INS have said that the information necessary for this proposed verification system does not exist. Moreover, who would want to empower some new, big government bureaucracy with the almighty ability to say, who can vote and who cannot, based on records which do not exist or are inaccurate? We can do better than this. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should not include H.R. 1428 in this rule.