Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the bill has been explained that was introduced by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. It is a fair bill, and I would just urge colleagues to support it at this time. 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, these changes in the bill are technical. There are no substantive changes in the law. It merely codifies and clarifies present law, and I urge the Members to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas has fully explained, H.R. 3680 implements this country's international obligation under the Geneva Convention which were ratified by the United States in 1955 to protect the victims of war by providing criminal penalties for certain war crimes. Mr. Speaker, this has never been formally enacted by statute, and the bill accomplishes this oversight. Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the legislation because it contains a new provision for the death penalty, but I can say that the bill enjoys broad-based support on this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my support to the recognition of the Philippine Commonwealth Army veterans who stood beside the United States servicemembers during the Second World War. The efforts of these members of the Philippine Army were essential in operations that helped free the nation of the Philippines from Japanese aggression and resulted in the defeat of Japan's expansion efforts. Nearly 100,000 Filipino soldiers endured more than 4 years of battle that left over 1 million Philippine civilians, soldiers, and guerrilla fighters dead. In 1946, Congress passed a Rescission Act that declared that the service provided by these brave people did not qualify them for veteran's benefits. These veterans were called to duty under the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and they were U.S. soldiers. The Philippine Scouts, who served after October 6, 1945, were also United States soldiers. House Concurrent Resolution 191 restores the recognition these brave soldiers deserve. This recognition is long overdue. We long ago promised these veterans the benefits they earned and we turned our backs on them. After ignoring the injustice of this country's bias so long, I am pleased that we can now provide a first step toward correcting this longstanding oversight. These veterans deserve the same rights and benefits as members of the U.S. services. It is only right that we fulfill our promises and recognize these deserving servicemembers.

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 166. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 166 was introduced by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]. It would grant the consent of Congress to a mutual aid agreement between the cities of Bristol, VA, and Bristol, TN, to allow law enforcement officers to respond to calls made by the other city. The State line cuts across Bristol's main thoroughfare, but police officers from Bristol, VA, do not have the legal authority to make arrests or perform other law enforcement activities on the other side of the street in Bristol, TN, and vice versa. This bill allows the cites to remedy that situation, and I commend Mr. Boucher and Mr. Quillen for their fine work on behalf of their constituents. The bill was reported, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has indicated, from the Committee on the Joint without opposition, and I urge the support of the bill at this time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr Speaker, House Joint Resolution 113, introduced by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett] would grant the consent of Congress to a compact between the States of Maryland and West Virginia providing for joint natural resource management and law enforcement at Jennings Randolph Lake. The lake was created out of a branch of the Potomac River on the border of the two States by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project, and, according to testimony received by the Committee on the Judiciary, the lack of a clear boundary has hampered policing and resource management efforts, and the need for this type of cooperation between the States is particularly acute during the peak summer months. The other body, Mr. Speaker, approved a companion measure by unanimous consent. I know of no opposition to this measure and urge its adoption by the House. 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, I rise in support of H.R. 3435. Last session, with strong bipartisan support, this Congress passed a major overhaul of the lobbying disclosure rules which require the reporting of meaningful and important information from registered lobbyists. Since the passage of that measure, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House have worked hard to provide the specific rules to implement this legislation. During the course of the promulgation of the rules, suggestions have been made to improve and in some cases strengthen the reporting requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Further suggestions have been made to simplify what in this case may have been duplicative and burdensome requirements on some not-for- profit institutions. Mr. Speaker, the technical amendments in today's bill reflect those improvements. We have corrected unnecessary requirements, we have provided fairness for those whose lobbying efforts are negligible, and we have streamlined the duplicative reporting requirements. The measure was passed out of the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously, and I urge its passage today under the suspension of the rules. 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, I rise in support of H.R. 1734. This bill takes two critical steps toward preserving America's very rich but threatened heritage of culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant films. The first is the reauthorization of the National Film Preservation Board. Congress established this board in 1988 tasking it with the annual selection of 25, ``culturally, historically or aesthetically significant,'' films to the National Film Registry and the development of labeling guidelines for films that have been ``materially altered.'' In 1992, when Congress reauthorized the board, our focus was on film preservation. The labeling guideline provision was dropped in the 1992 reauthorization because it had proved to be too contentious and problematic with little likelihood of consensus among the interested stakeholders. Two significant accomplishments result from this 1992 reauthorization act. First, the 1-year study completed in 1993 persuasively demonstrated that the American film heritage was at risk. It found that fewer than 20 percent of the feature films from the 1920's survive in complete form. For features from the 1910's, the survival rate falls to about 10 percent. Only about half of the films made before 1950 survive. The study found that many lost American films can only be found in foreign archives. This study accomplished the important step of assessing the nature and scope of the threat to our film heritage. The second major achievement was the development of a national consensus plan for film preservation, representing 6 months of negotiations and consensus building among archivists, educators, film makers, and film industry executives. Today, by reauthorizing the Film Preservation Board for 7 years, we can ensure that these efforts to preserve our historical and cultural film heritage will continue. By creating a new federally chartered nonprofit foundation, the National Film Preservation Foundation, this bill creates an important new mechanism to further these efforts. These two provisions will increase film availability for educational and public exhibition. They will spur the development of public-private partnerships to restore key films, share preservation information and repatriate lost American films that are now found only in foreign archives. The foundation will be able to raise money for the preservation of newsreels, documentaries, independent and avant garde films, socially significant amateur footage, regional historical films and other features of cultural and historical importance that otherwise could not survive. All of this is done with an extremely modest authorization level. The film board is kept at $250,000, and the foundation authorized for no funds until the fiscal year 2000 when an annual ceiling of $250,000 takes effect. While Hollywood films have the commercial value which will ensure their preservation, the same cannot be said for much of our film heritage, which nonetheless has enormous cultural and historical significance. It is for these latter works, the public domain or educational films, historical footage, documentaries, and other films that this bill is so vitally important. Let me mention one example of a film now available to the American public because of the efforts of the Film Preservation Board. A film entitled ``Within Our Gates,'' the oldest film directed by an African- American, was selected and preserved by the film board. It was a film that very few people had seen because so few copies were available. A copy of this important but essential lost work, a 1920 film directed by Oscar Micheau, was found in the Spanish film archives as a result of the preservation board efforts. The Library of Congress has been able to release this film on video and make it widely available to the public. But for the existence of the film board, this important bit of African-American cultural heritage would be languishing, unseen in the Spanish film archives. H.R. 1734 uses creative and collaborative approaches to ensure that America's rich film heritage is preserved for future generations. 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. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California has indicated, many cases that come before the circuit court involved a 3-judge pane. Those decisions will frequently include a senior or retired judge as a member of the panel. If the case goes to the full circuit court, the senior judge that took part in that decision can continue considering that case in the full court. The circuits have split as to what happened when a judge changes from regular status to senior status during the trial and the circuits are split. This bill just merely says that, if he takes senior status while the case is still pending, he can continue to consider the case. This bill has unanimous support from the Committee on the Judiciary, and I urge support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my good friend from Arkansas in supporting this amendment. This amendment simply requires that deaths which occur in State and local jails and prisons be reported to the U.S. Attorney General. A similar measure was adopted by the House on a voice vote without opposition during the consideration of the 1995 crime bill. Dating back to my experience as a State legislator, Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned that there is no system of counting the deaths that occur in the custody of law enforcement officials. As detailed in the exhaustive year long investigative report last year by the Asbury Press in New Jersey, many of those deaths occur under suspicious circumstances. They estimated that about 1,000 of such deaths occur each year. These reports will allow us to get a handle on the nature and extent of how serious a problem it may be. We just do not know. Some suggested this may be an unreasonable burden. But if any jurisdiction in America has so many deaths in custody that reporting all of them would be a burden, then this amendment is even more necessary. I would hope that we would adopt the amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for introducing it.

Mr. SCOTT

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of comments. The gentleman from Kentucky has indicated the States will not get the money. The money will go back to the States. The money will be spent. Instead of prisons, it will be spent on juvenile justice prevention. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, has done an outstanding job in having hearings across the country, and I want to congratulate him for the unique hearings that he has had. He has had several attorneys general, heads of crime agencies within the States come to testify about what needs to be done, and I want to congratulate him for having those open hearings. The gentleman is exactly right, the purpose of the amendment is to gut the truth in sentencing provision. I like to call it not the truth in sentencing but the half truth in sentencing provision, because when we have truth in sentencing, the half truth is we cannot let people out early, but the whole truth is we cannot hold people longer either. The most heinous violent criminals are held by denying parole time after time after time. When everybody gets the average sentence, they are all let out at the same time: the heinous criminals, those that we know are going to be recidivist and those that are low risk all get out at the same time. I would say that the gentleman from Kentucky said that there is plenty of ``macho man'' in this bill, and that is the point. It is all ``macho'' but no effect. This amendment will not delete the prison construction. If they are serving 38 percent of the time now, if this amendment passes or fails, they will serve 38 percent later. There is just not enough money in this amendment to make any difference in State prison construction. We talk about the revolving door and people unaccountable. The fact is that 10 percent of young African-American males are in jail today, more in jail than in college. We need to do something about crime. Waiting for incarceration to make a difference means we have to wait for the crime to be committed, wait for people to get caught, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, serve the time they are to serve and then add some more time. This amendment would deal with them before they commit the crime in the first place. All of the studies show that it is a much more effective way of dealing with crime than waiting for it to occur. I hope that we will adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment transfers $497,500,000 from the Prison Grant Program under this bill to the Incentive Grants for local delinquency prevention programs, also funded under the bill. It is drawn so that it will not affect money for State criminal alien incarceration or money for the cooperative agreement program funded under this section. Mr. Chairman, this Nation spends tens of billions of dollars every year addressing crime after it has already been committed. In the last 15 years, the number of inmates in State and Federal prisons more than tripled, from 319,000 in 1980 to over one million in 1994. During the same period, the population in local jails increased 165 percent, while the United States population increased just 15 percent. As a result of these sharp increases in incarceration, the United States has become the most prolific incarcerator in the world. The average incarceration rate, internationally, is about 100 percent 100,000 population. The United States already locks up over 500 per 100,000 population, and in inner cities, the rate goes over 3,000 per 100,000. Yet, the crime rate has not abated and crime remains one of the top concerns of the American public. We now have experience as well as research that shows that increasing incarceration after a point has no effect on reducing crime. We have long passed that point. At the same time we have simple evidence from research and experience showing that prevention programs aimed at at- risk youth and children significantly reduces crime. Yet, compared to the tens of billions we spend on crime after the fact, we spend very little focused on preventing young people from becoming criminals in the first place. Recently, the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary went around the country holding hearings on how to reduce juvenile crime. The Congressional Black Caucus crime and youth braintrusts held a whole day of hearings on the subject. I attended all of those hearings. During those hearings, witness after witness, including law enforcement officials, talked about an impending crime wave over the next decade due to the expected increases in the number of teenagers, and many indicated that our best hope for reducing the crime was to focus on at-risk youth and children while they are young and before they become serious criminals. Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that we ought to incarcerate any less than we do today. Based on our current policies, if we do nothing to our incarceration levels, we will continue to lock up more people per every 100,000 population than any other country on Earth. I am saying that, having more than tripled the incarceration in this country in the last 15 years, at great expense to the taxpayer and with little effect on crime, that we are already incarcerating high enough levels to get all of the crime reduction benefits we can hope to get from incarceration and, in spite of the emotional sound bite appeal of more and more incarceration, more and more incarceration just will not reduce crime. The amount of money in this amendment will be a drop in the bucket in terms of financing incarceration. It amounts to about $1 million per congressional district if divided equally around the country. Now, the State of Virginia has already committed itself to spend $11 billion, about $1 billion per congressional district, over the next 10 years as a result of new policies. This amendment, therefore, would be less than 1 percent of what Virginia will be spending. As we have already shown, that incarceration will not reduce crime, but that money would have a great effect if it is spent on prevention programs. Dropout prevention, afterschool programs, summer recreation, drug abuse programs, even the much vilified midnight basketball program all have been shown to save much more money than they cost in later prison and welfare expenditures. Those, by the way, who trash midnight basketball fail to point out that it is a program which uses participation in an organized basketball league as a hook to get young people into education courses, drug avoidance counseling and job training, and they also fail to point out, as a recent Rand Corp. study confirmed, that when midnight basketball programs are established, the crime rate goes down dramatically in that neighborhood. With an average of about $1 million per congressional district targeted toward at-risk youth, each congressional district could provide about 1,500 latchkey children with afterschool care for a year, or 2,000 children with a summer camp program, or 600 drug addicted youth with drug treatment, or fund five $200,000 juvenile mentoring programs, which is what many of the at-risk funds are used for now, or any combination of these programs which have been proven to reduce crime. We can do all of these things, which will reduce crime, or we can waste the money by throwing it into the bottomless pit of prison construction, which will do nothing to reduce crime. I ask, Mr. Chairman, for support for this amendment and put the interest of crime victims and taxpayers ahead of political expediency. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recommend the following article to my colleagues, authored by Rabbi Israel Zoberman from Virginia Beach on ``Putting the Middle East Peace in Perspective'' which appeared in the April 5, 1996 edition of the Virginian Pilot. [From the Virginian--Pilot, 4, 5, 1996] Putting Middle East Peace in Perspective (By Israel Zoberman) The Middle East peace process finds itself at fateful crossroads following the recent terrorist suicide-bombings in Israel's urban centers. The 100-years-long deadly entanglement between Arab and Jew began to be unlocked by the courageously crafted 1979 rapprochement between President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel. The first breach in the wall separating avowed antagonists was led on the Arab side by no other than Egypt. Though Sadat became a sacrifice on the altar of correcting history's course, his act of faith, along with Begin's willing yet costly compromise, was necessary for the next break-through to follow. That was not to happen without the painful 1982 Lebanon war, which highlighted the Palestinian factor and the urgency of responding creatively to its complex dimensions. The bloody and embarrassing Intifada erupting in 1987 confirmed Israel's need to come to grips with that portion of the Camp David Peace Accords remaining open, laying to rest those spoils of the 1967 Six-Day War, which paradoxically have both allowed and forced it to negotiate peace. The PLO and Chairman Yasser Arafat received the final wake-up call in the wake of the 1991 Persian Gulf war. He bet on the wrong horse, while facing the prospect of being replaced by the even-more-militant Muslim fundamentalism of the uncompromising Hamas ilk. The 1993 shaky handshake between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Arafat on the South Lawn of the White House, with President Clinton acting as proud officiant, changed forever the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics, facilitating Jordan's 1994 peace treaty with Israel. Rabin, ironically the victorious architect of the glorious 1967 war of survival, fell victim to its bitter fruit and an Israeli-Jewish extremist vengefully trying to halt proceeding toward a land-for-peace solution, causing an immense trauma. The exsoldier's heroic peacemaking has already dramatically enlarged Israel's circle of diplomatic and economic connections, substantially rewarding the cooperative Arabs, including the hard-pressed Palestinians. In January, I was among 55 rabbis on a peace mission to visit the leadership of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. We were in Gaza on the eve of the first Palestinian elections, protected by armed guards as we entered at the Erez checkpoint, where a relative of mine, a young Israeli officer, was killed about a year ago. We were warmly greeted by General Usuf, head of security; he impressed us with his realistic appraisal, stating that it is easier to fight than to engage in peace and that it is absolutely necessary to educate the young generation for a new reality, acknowledging that both societies are interdependent. Wise words, indeed. We owe a great deal to President Clinton for his steadfast backing throughout this excruciating series of highs and lows, its uplifting moments and, particularly, during the devastating ordeal of assassination and terrorist explosions. He has won the heart of Israel with his reassuring presence and wide initiative, spearheading the anti-terrorism summit conference and taking concrete steps to provide aid in efforts to counter terrorism. Such steps should include cutting off financial support from sources in the United States and Europe to the sponsors of wholesale slaughter, Iran receiving no uncertain notice for its criminal involvement. I remain confident about the potential to avoid the pitfalls of the past, though I am concerned about the May 28 Israeli elections and the possible loss of nerve after being so gravely tested. Having grown up in the Israel of the '50s and '60s and having served in its army, I appreciate the miracle of a transformed environment that we could not even dream of then. The essential agreement with Syria and Lebanon, without which there is no peace, is in the offing, mindful of the thorny Golan issue. Even hard-nosed President Hafez el-Assad cannot long deny it; his role is vital in checking the plague of violence which he does not hesitate to unleash for his own purposes. Arafat knows that his future and that of his long-deprived people depends on standing up to foes from within who are undermining their own brethren. Amending the Palestinian National Covenant in regard to Israel's destruction is long overdue. We surely cannot permit the purveyors of chaos and hate to have the last say. They will not alter the progressive agenda and valiant vision to yet turn swords into plowshares, hallowing the gift of life through the gift of peace.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to restore funding for NASA's Advanced Subsonic Aeronautic Research Program to the level contained in the President's budget. H.R. 3322 cuts the advanced subsonic program by 34.4 million, money that is vitally important to maintaining NASA's longstanding leadership in subsonic research. For those not familiar with subsonic research, let me briefly outline the kinds of activities being affected. Activities such as research and development to address aging aircraft, safety concerns, and aging aircraft are the kinds of aircraft popular with the newer economy airlines and the aging airframes used by the United States military. Subsonic research in jeopardy also includes cooperative activities with the FAA to improve safety and efficiency in the Nation's air traffic management system so we do not lose control of the increasing volume of commercial and military air traffic. Also in jeopardy is R&D on advanced technologies that could result in quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft and an understanding of how aircraft operations affect the environment. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge and support the need to cut Government spending where appropriate in order to meet our budget responsibilities. However, a cut in NASA's aeronautic authorization program is extremely counterproductive to our shared goals of increasingly stronger economy and a stronger America. Mr. Chairman, the American aeronautics industry has an annual sales of over $60 billion and is responsible for this country's greatest positive balance of trade. Without the research and support of NASA, the U.S. aeronautics industry would not be competitive in the global marketplace. This was in fact the purpose for which Congress created NASA in the first place. It is important to remember that in 1917 Congress created NASA's predecessor for the express purpose of regaining America's competitiveness in aviation at a time when dominance in this area had been lost to the Europeans. Now at a time when the Europeans are in high gear, supporting the research and development of the Airbus, we are poised to shoot ourselves in the foot again by cutting the very programs that kept the United States aeronautics program competitive. This amendment will enable these subsonic programs to continue at a reasonable level. Mr. Chairman, recently I had the chance to see firsthand how this program works and the results of this program because I had the opportunity to participate in celebrations commemorating the production of the new Boeing 777, and also another program commemorating the McDonnell Douglas C-17. Both programs use the wing design and composite materials developed more than a decade ago by NASA. These aircraft, one commercial, one military, are now on the cutting edge of aircraft technology and greatly advance the competitive position of the United States in the world marketplace. Without the research under the advanced subsonic program, we are in jeopardy of losing our competitive edge 5, 10, and 15 years from now. Mr. Chairman, we should not contribute to any effort which might lead to the loss of U.S. preeminence in aeronautics. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and therefore support this country's economy.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. One of the serious problems with H.R. 3322 is the omission of research conducted by the Department of Energy. This substitute restores funding for these programs. We made tremendous progress and received Noble prizes for the research conducted in labs funded under research programs by the Department of Energy. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Virginia is the Department of Energy facility that supports a national subatomic particle research. This facility provides the Nation a unique tool for exploring the structure of the nucleus of an atom and for dramatically increasing our understanding of how the basic building blocks of nature work. The Transfer Technology Program funded by the Department of Energy includes the very best scientific research facilities in the Nation. Under the guidance of the Laser Processing Consortium, which includes 22 laboratories and universities on three continents, we have developed cutting-edge technologies that will be critical in our future health and national economic well-being. As a nation we must retain our edge to meet the coming international competition. Another program, Mr. Chairman, funded under this substitute is the Mission to Planet Earth project under NASA. Two satellites not funded under the base bill are essential to determining how climate changes. Not the impact of weather changes; we know how floods and tornados and droughts and snow affect our climates, but we need the information that will be collected by CHEM-1 and P.M.-1 satellites which will help to establish early warning systems, provide information on natural irrigation channels and assist in recognizing the power of wind, water, and natural vegetation on our home planet. I am also pleased to see the restoration in the substitute of the 20- percent funding cut in H.R. 3322 of the NASA advanced subsonic program. This funding is vitally important to maintaining this Nation's longstanding leadership on subsonic research. We need the studies on aging aircraft used in the newer economy airlines, we need the improvement of safety of our air traffic control systems, and we need the research and development of the quieter, more fuel efficient and environmentally safe aircraft. I acknowledge and support the need to cut Government spending where appropriate in order to meet our budget responsibilities, but such a cut to NASA's aeronautics program are extremely counterproductive to our shared goals of creating a stronger economy and a stronger America. I ask that we support the Brown substitute.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of allegations and some, most of it, exaggerated, a lot of anecdotes. Many of the anecdotes would have been received under appeal under the present law. The fact of the matter is that the number of these cases is minuscule, especially when we look at the punitive damages cases, less than one per State per year. These have a very strong deterrent effect because every day corporations have to decide whether they are going to recall dangerous products or modify dangerous products that are killing or maiming people. If this bill was passed, it would be cheaper to kill or maim people than to recall or modify the products. Punitive damage cases end the situation where corporations were selling children flammable pajamas because it was cheaper to sell those pajamas than to modify them so they would not go afire like newsprint. We have heard about costs. We ought to have savings. A lot of people are not being maimed and injured as a result of tort reform and the deterrent effect. Mr. Speaker, these laws we talk about as being uniform are not uniform. The only laws that are affected by these laws are those that are more draconian to consumers than the State laws. If the State has a more draconian law, then that law stays in effect under this legislation. We also have a situation where joint and several liability is abolished. That is where the consumer, if he has a good case, a winning case, can sue many people and they have to decide how that damage is going to be apportioned. If this bill passes, it will be up to the consumer to try to find the unavailable defendants, those that may be insolvent. All of that will be borne by the victim. Mr. Speaker, on this vote we should protect consumers. We should require corporate responsibility, and we should support the President's veto by voting no on the motion to override.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. The last series of votes points out the reason why the Sentencing Commission is so important. It provides a rational determination of sentence. Without the Sentencing Commission looking at each of these sentences, we can expect life without parole and longer sentences for virtually every crime. Politicians will decorate their brochures with bills that address high profile crimes of the day, or to codify new slogans as they come up. Mr. Chairman, the answer to crime will always be more time to be served, without regard of what the punishment is without a new bill, just more time. There will be no rational pattern. Should a drunk driver get more than a rapist, or more or less than someone guilty of telemarketing fraud who steals senior citizens' life savings, or more or less than someone involved in a barroom brawl? The Sentencing Commission can make that determination in the context of whether someone caught with a small amount of drugs should serve more time than a murderer. The legislative process, however, is to deal with the crime of the day or the latest slogan, always more time to be served. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to see where we are after decades of this process. On an international basis, the United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any country on Earth. Japan and Greece both lock up less than 50 people per 100,000 population; Canada and Mexico, about an average of about 100. There are only two countries in the world that lock up more than 400 people per 100,000 population: Russia and the United States, both around 500 and some. In inner cities in this country today, we lock up 3,000 people per 100,000 population, compared to the international average of about 100. That incarceration is not free. Virginia, which has tripled the prison population since I was first elected to the house of delegates in the State legislature; in addition to that, recently we have gone on a prison construction binge that will cost $100 million for each congressional district every year for the foreseeable future. That is because we keep increasing the time to be served for the crime of the day or the slogan of the day. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to be serious about crime, we should be spending that money on initiatives which would actually reduce crime: education, jobs, recreation, drug rehabilitation, not decorating campaign brochures with expensive, haphazard, ineffective rhetoric. That is why we have the Sentencing Commission, to provide a rational, deliberate process to determine sentences, and that is why we should support the Watt amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves on the anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing with a bill with the title ``antiterrorism.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report because it will do little, if anything, to reduce terrorism, while at the same time it will, in fact, terrorize our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Secretary of State and Attorney General can designate terrorist organizations. In effect, politicians can designate which organizations are popular and which are not popular. The ANC in South Africa could be designated as a terrorist organization, and support of that organization would be in violation of the law. Politicians can choose which side in El Salvador we ought to be supporting or not supporting by designating one or the other as terrorist. Mr. Speaker, what happens to our rights if we have secret trials where people can be deported, based on evidence presented in private, without the opportunity to be heard? The so-called crown jewel of the bill, the habeas corpus provision, Mr. Speaker, we have heard of the frivolous appeals. Forty percent of these appeals are in fact successful. People have been denied a fair trial. People are in fact sentenced to death who are factually innocent. These are not frivolous appeals. Those who have bona fide appeals will have their rights denied. Mr. Speaker, we have a system where the innocent and the guilty are tried by the same procedure, so those who are guilty in fact may have a little more time on death row, but those who are innocent have an opportunity to present that evidence. If this bill is enacted, we will find that those who are factually innocent and can present evidence of innocence will in fact be put to death. Mr. Speaker, that is not an effective death penalty when we put innocent people to death. Those who could show that they are probably innocent will not even get a hearing, under this bill. I would hope we would defeat this conference report.