Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3832, the Stolen Identity Refund Fraud Prevention Act of 2016, as amended. While I support the legislation's underlying goal of deterring and preventing tax-related identity theft and tax fraud, I strongly oppose the bill's expansion of mandatory minimum sentencing. Section 5 of the bill would expand the mandatory minimums found in Title 18 Section 1028A of the United States Code. This section of Title 18 imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of two years for ``aggravated identity theft.'' Under section 5 of this bill, a violation of section 7206(b) of the Internal Revenue Code would require a judge to impose a two year mandatory minimum regardless of the circumstances of the case. While a two year sentence may be appropriate for most individuals convicted under this bill, it should be left to the discretion of the sentencing judge to determine the exact sentence based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. Research and evidence in the past few decades has demonstrated that mandatory minimums are ineffective deterrents, waste the taxpayers' money, force judges to impose irrational sentences, and discriminate against minorities, particularly with regards to drug offenses. Unfortunately, there are too many mandatory minimums in the federal code. Mr. Speaker, if we expect to do anything about that problem, the first step has to be to stop passing new ones. The mandatory minimums in the code today did not get there all at once--they got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill, which on balance might have been a good idea. Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain mandatory minimums. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote No on H.R. 3832.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman. I appreciate the gentleman from New York and certainly the gentlewoman from Ohio for organizing this Special Order to discuss the need for criminal justice reform. Mr. Speaker, we have serious, fundamental problems with our criminal justice system today. For too long, policymakers have chosen to play politics with crime policy by enacting so-called tough on crime slogans and sound bites, such as three strikes and you are out, mandatory minimum sentences, and--if you get it to rhyme, apparently, it is better--if you do the adult crime, you do the adult time. As appealing as these policies sound, their impacts range from a negligible reduction in crime to actually increasing the crime rate. As a result of these policies, the United States, despite representing only 5 percent of the world's population, has 25 percent of the world's prisoners and now has the highest incarceration rate of any nation's, by far, in the world. There are 2.2 million people behind bars in this country. That is triple the number of prisoners we had just three decades ago. At over 700 persons incarcerated for every 100,000 in the population, the United States far exceeds the world's average incarceration rate of about 100 per 100,000. Recent studies have questioned the sanity of this mass incarceration. For example, the Pew Research Center on States estimates that after about 350 per 100,000, any crime reduction value begins to diminish, and at over 500 per 100,000, incarceration becomes, actually, counterproductive. As I said, our rate is now at 700 per 100,000. These counterproductive effects are created because today there are too many children who are being raised by a parent who is in prison and by too many people with felony records who are unable to find jobs. The impact of our tax dollars is also distressing. The Bureau of Prisons is consuming too much of the Department of Justice's budget, meaning that the Department has fewer and fewer resources for other programs that can actually reduce crime and enhance public safety. The tough on crime approach falls the hardest on minorities. While the incarceration rate overall in the United States is approximately 700 per 100,000, for Blacks, the incarceration rate is over 2,200 per 100,000; and in some jurisdictions, they lock up Blacks at the rate of 4,000 per 100,000--a rate 40 times the international average. The war on drugs has exacerbated this problem. Over 2,000 Federal prisoners are now serving life without parole for nonviolent drug crimes, and many more are serving unduly harsh sentences for nonviolent offenses. The racial disparities are staggering. Despite the fact that Whites engage in drug offenses at a rate equal to or often higher than that of African Americans, African Americans are incarcerated on drug charges at a rate 10 times greater than that of Whites. We all agree that there is a problem with mass incarceration. So what is the best way to solve it? When reviewing any legislative package called criminal justice reform, I think there are some key principles that we have to address. First, reform must meaningfully address the problem of mass incarceration by significantly reducing admissions to prison and shortening a prisoner's length of stay. Second, any reform must address the primary driver of the ballooning Federal prison populations, and that is mandatory minimum penalties, especially those for drug and firearm offenses. Third, we must address the disparate impact on race in the Federal criminal justice system that has resulted from the application of many neutrally worded policies and laws. Fourth, reform must address mental health and addiction issues as a public health issue and require intervention and treatment plans to resolve underlying issues that led those to be involved in the criminal justice system rather than implement so-called tough on crime, lock 'em up approaches. Everybody knows that the war on drugs has failed. We need to address drug abuse more as a public health issue and less as a criminal justice issue. Fifth, we must provide comprehensive reentry and rehabilitation services and incentives for completing those programs that are found to actually work, with a particular focus on those with the greatest need. Finally, any legislation must be based on research and evidence, not on poll-tested slogans and sound bites or political negotiations, which are unrelated to research and evidence. How do the current proposals stack up? First, we look at the current bills that have been reported out of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and notice that they fail to embody any of the principles. In fact, they often take the opposite approach. While these bills reduce the number of admissions and/or length of stay in some limited cases, they also create new mandatory minimums, even new mandatory minimums or mandatory consecutive enhancements. They enhance existing mandatory minimums to apply to people who would not get them under the present law, and they irrationally limit who can benefit from prospective and retroactive relief provisions. It is unknown whether there will be an overall increase or decrease in prison impact at the 10-year point after implementation, if these bills pass, compared to doing nothing. The United States Sentencing Commission has been unable to quantify the impact of the expansions or the limitations on relief. So the fact that we do not have the numbers means that we cannot determine whether these bills will have any meaningful effect on mass incarceration. Though the bills do shorten two supersized mandatory minimums, they do not eliminate any mandatory minimum. The Senate bill actually creates two new ones, and both bills create new mandatory consecutive sentencing enhancements, which must be served after any other sentence. Both bills expand mandatory minimums for drug and gun offenses by applying them to people who would not be eligible to receive them today. If the problem we are trying to address is mass incarceration, why are those in the bill to begin with? Neither of the bills will do anything to address the disparate racial impact that pervades our criminal justice system. Federal mandatory minimums, in particular those for drug and firearm offenses, have been studied and have been found to have a racially disparate impact. These bills do nothing to eliminate mandatory minimums. Even though they reduce some, they create new ones, expand others, and create new sentencing enhancements. So the bills may actually make racial disparities in sentencing even worse than they are under present law. Finally, both bills put limits on who can receive prospective and retroactive relief. If you look at the limitations, you will find that they have a racially disparate impact on minorities. On the issue of the war on drugs, both bills also fail to treat drug abuse and addiction as a public health problem. In fact, the strategy used in the bills to address heroin addiction is not a public health approach, for the bills impose mandatory additional prison time. This is not a public health, research-based approach. On the comprehensive reentry and rehabilitation services to reduce recidivism, these bills have turned science and empirical evidence upside down. They give the greatest incentives for completing the programs to those with the lowest need while categorically barring offenders with the highest risk from benefiting from the rehabilitation programs. This approach not only violates research, but it will exacerbate the current racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Mr. Speaker, there is ample research available to show what credible criminal justice reform ought to look like. For example, Texas--one of the Nation's most conservative States--recently passed criminal justice reform legislation that was based on research and evidence, and the result was a significant reduction in crime, a significant reduction in incarceration, and a savings of billions of dollars. The SAFE Justice Act--the Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Effective Justice Act--which I cosponsored with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), which the gentlewoman from Ohio pointed out that she is supporting, was based on the Texas model and includes evidence-based prevention and early intervention programs; reducing incarceration even at the State level as well as at the Federal level; comprehensive police training and funding for body cameras, drug and veterans' courts; a significant reduction in the use of mandatory minimum sentences; and rehabilitation for all of those in prison and second- chance programs for those who have been released. It has broad, bipartisan support. All of the provisions in the bill are fully paid for by reallocating the reduction in mandatory minimums, and it shows that we do not have to accept a bill that fails to conform to evidence and research. Mr. Speaker, criminal justice reform legislation ought to be consistent with the research and evidence that is readily available. From what I can tell, the bills reported out of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have nothing based in research and evidence and, sadly, seem more concerned about the politics of criminal justice reform, with little regard to actually wanting to end our Nation's addiction to mass incarceration. The SAFE Justice Act is a better evidence-based approach, which will, if enacted, reduce crime, save money, and reduce racial disparities that pervade our criminal justice system. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentleman from New York for hosting tonight's Special Order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted NAY on passage of S. 524, as amended by the House. I strongly support S. 524, as amended by the House. Personal Explanation

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4843, the Infant Plan of Safe Care Improvement Act. Mr. Speaker, one of our highest national priorities should be to ensure that children have early quality opportunities to remove barriers to success in future life. But children born dependent on addictive substances face severe obstacles to overcome, and we know that many of these obstacles can be removed. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA, is meant to support infants born addicted to these illegal substances. Unfortunately, nearly every State fails to follow the CAPTA requirements, which work to ensure that children born of these circumstances have a plan of safe care that will help them grow up healthy. H.R. 4843 is a strong positive first step to safeguard the well-being of our Nation's most vulnerable children. It will strengthen an infant's plan of safe care. It will help families and caregivers give the guidance and support they need in order to provide a nurturing environment for these children. I welcome this bipartisan agreement to amend CAPTA as part of the comprehensive efforts to intervene and treat those affected by substance abuse. I therefore urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4843.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 32, the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015. While I support the underlying goal of combating drug trafficking, existing federal criminal laws already prohibit and punish this conduct. This bill however weakens existing mens rea standards, and therefore could lead to the application of mandatory minimums to action which the defendant did not know was illegal. This bill therefore is a perfect example of four of the most common problems in crime policy. First, it is a textbook example of overcriminalization, namely the careless creation and addition of federal crimes without reviewing if that conduct is already sufficiently prohibited and can be prosecuted under existing federal criminal laws. Existing federal laws prohibit importation and exportation of controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute such substances, or attempt or conspiracy to do so and therefore already prohibit the very conduct S. 32 was drafted to reach. Our federal code contains over 5,000 offenses carrying criminal penalties, but a precise count eludes not only the Congressional research service but also the Department of Justice, the agency charged with prosecuting those offenses. The House Judiciary Committee's bi- partisan Overcriminalization Task Force, upon which I served as Ranking Member, found that our Congressional appetite to add new federal offenses to demonstrate that we were ``tough on crime,'' instead of relying on existing state or federal statutes, was a significant driver. If we are serious about cleaning up our federal code, it starts with ensuring that the first question we ask when introducing, marking up, or voting on a bill is whether that bill is necessary. There is no such evidence in the record that the Department of Justice has been unable to investigate or prosecute these such cases under existing law, nor is there any evidence that the present punishment for violation of these laws is insufficient. Second, the mens rea standard in S. 32 is weaker than the criminal intent standards of existing federal drug statutes carrying mandatory minimums. This means that the government can convict based on a lower standard of proof. Again, the need for a robust mens rea standard is a key Constitutional requirement that ensures that citizens are not deprived of their liberty, absent a showing that they were aware that their conduct was prohibited and they intended to engage in that unlawful conduct. In the wake of discussions about the importance of mens rea in protecting defendants who act with innocent intent and/or no notice of the illegality of their conduct, it is disappointing to see a step in the wrong direction that makes it easier for the government to convict them based upon a weaker standard. Third, applying S. 32 would lead to unintended consequences due to this weaker mens rea standard. Specifically, not only does S. 32 criminalize ``intending'' or ``knowing'' that one of the prohibited chemicals will be used to manufacture a controlled substance, but also ``having reasonable cause to believe that the controlled substance will be unlawfully imported into the United States.'' Many legitimate industrial chemicals, such as anhydrous ammonia found in fertilizer or ephedrine found in sinus medication, and natural substances, such as the alkaloid fluid extracted from the bulbs of poppy plants, can also be used to process and synthesize some illicitly produced drugs. Thus, the problem S. 32 presents is that it may sweep too broadly. For example, a fertilizer manufacturer or pharmaceutical company or florist in Europe could be criminally liable and subject to a mandatory minimum penalty. That is because under S. 32's rubric, any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of any substance that some illicit chemist seeks to turn into an existing, or as-of-yet-developed, controlled substance would be vulnerable to federal criminal charges. The problem is that S. 32's ``reasonable cause to believe'' benchmark is intellectually bankrupt''--is it ``reasonable cause to believe that the entity they are shipping it to has requested it for illicit purposes'' or merely ``reasonable cause to believe that these are the types of chemicals that could be turned into illicit drugs?'' Lastly, this bill expands the universe of conduct to which a mandatory minimum applies. Research and evidence in the past few decades has demonstrated that mandatory minimums are ineffective deterrents, waste the taxpayers' money, force judges to impose irrational sentences, and discriminate against minorities, particularly with regards to drug offenses. Unfortunately, there are too many mandatory minimums in the federal code. If we expect to do anything about that problem, the first step has to be to stop passing new ones. The mandatory minimums in the code today did not get there all at once--they got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill, which on balance might have been a good idea. Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain mandatory minimums. Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum had not been in a bill, then voting for it anyway, just creates another mandatory minimum and guarantees that those who support mandatory minimums will include them in the next crime bill. And more mandatory minimums will be created and the failed war on drugs will continue. If our goal is to ensure that we prosecute transnational drug traffickers, let us provide adequate funding to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to do so under multiple federal statutes that already achieve that goal, without raising these problematic implementation and fairness concerns. In summary, while I support the underlying goal of S. 32, I have grave concerns about its redundancy, its erosion of the mens reas standard commonly used in these offenses, its broad sweep and its use of mandatory minimums. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on S. 32.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The gentlewoman pointed out that, with the randomized studies, there was no difference in the public schools and the voucher programs. Those studies are the conclusion of vigorous research that there was no difference; is that right?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4901, which would reauthorize the D.C. voucher program, known as the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, through 2021. We don't spend enough money on education, so it is hard to justify diverting scarce public resources in order to finance private school education for a handful of students at the expense of the vast majority who attend public schools. Instead, we should focus our limited public resources on initiatives that improve education for all of our children. This is the promise of a public school education in the United States, but the voucher programs undermine that promise while hiding behind the guise of school choice for students in need. There are about 50 participating schools in the Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program, but more than half of all of the participants are enrolled in just eight schools. Most of the schools in the program have higher tuition than the voucher covers, limiting the utility of the voucher and shifting the cost of education to the families that can't afford it--essentially, denying the opportunity to students whose families cannot afford the remainder of the tuition. Federal dollars are being provided to a small number of parents who can afford the choice and to others with students who are already enrolled in private schools when that money could have been used for our public school systems. Although there are a few who can participate in the program, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia said, the results are disappointing. Research consistently demonstrates that the D.C. voucher program is an ineffective program that does not increase achievement. The four reports produced by the Department of Education found no improvement in reading and math after entering the voucher program for students coming from the most struggling D.C. public schools, nor did they find any statistically significant difference in math and reading academic performance from D.C. public schools. On average, Mr. Speaker, these schools are, at best, average. When you cite statistics that say some may be doing well, you have to take into consideration that these are children from families who are very supportive of their children and that they would be doing well whether they were in the voucher program or not. In addition to the disappointing results, we also found the voucher participants were less likely to have access to English language programs, special education supports, counselors, and other vital supports that ensure that all students remain on the path of academic success. If the schools are not producing the promised results, why are we providing them with unrestricted Federal dollars? Mr. Speaker, we could have improved the bill. We have a closed rule, so amendments were not allowed, but there were several amendments that should have been considered that I had offered. One would have protected the civil rights of students at schools that receive vouchers by requiring schools to certify that they provide each student with applicable civil rights protections. Another would have required any school receiving funds under this program to comply with the same Federal data and reporting requirements that all public schools or other schools receiving Federal money have to provide. All of our congressional districts provide this information, but, unfortunately, it is not required under the voucher program. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to spend $20 million to fund education in the District of Columbia, we ought to use it to improve education for everyone, not just for a few. This bill uses the money to help a few parents by subsidizing tuition in private schools, which many were already attending, at the expense of many, and it extends a program that fails to actually improve the education for students in Washington, D.C. I join the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia in opposing this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that point, if you select students from families who can afford the tuition and who are very supportive of their students, is it a surprise that they may do better in graduation rates than the average?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Would they be expected to do better, with their supportive families, than the average?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a Member who, before coming to Congress, had a long career in the financial services industry.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 88. This Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval would undo the Department of Labor's final rule that simply ensures financial advisers act in the best interests of their clients with retirement funds. Now, this is a Department of Labor rule that only applies to workers' retirement funds. In times past, people would retire and receive a defined benefit. They would just retire and get their promised income. But now, we have what are called defined contribution plans, where the money is invested and, over the years, if someone, even a modest-income person, invests over his 40-year career, he could easily amass a fund of hundreds of thousands of dollars, even $1 million if they start early and invest consistently. So we are talking about people who may not have bought a single share of stock or a bond or mutual fund in their life, who walks into an investment adviser's office with all of the savings that could amount to as much as $1 million. For far too long, certain financial advisers have been able to exploit loopholes in the decades-old regulation that governs investment advice for retirement savers. Right now, financial advisers can easily steer retirement clients towards financial products that may yield the adviser a big commission but may not be in their clients' best interest. Of course, not every financial adviser does this, but some do. This unscrupulous practice of providing what is called conflicted advice insidiously erodes workers' retirement nest eggs. According to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, retirement savers lose $17 billion a year as a result of receiving conflicted advice about their retirement savings. The Department of Labor recognizes the magnitude of this problem, and the department took action to protect workers' retirement savings. All told, they have been working on this issue for nearly 6 years. Over the past year alone, they conducted hundreds of meetings and provided the American public and industry representatives with nearly 6 months to weigh in on their proposal to fix the problem. Secretary Perez and his colleagues listened to and repeatedly assured industry officials, Members of Congress, and other stakeholders that the final proposal would reflect the input that the department received and that the department would get the rule right. I believe the department did just that. The final rule addresses the legitimate concerns raised by Members of Congress, industry, and other stakeholders without compromising the main goal: ensuring that retirement clients receive investment advice that is in their best interest. I am not alone in believing this. The broad and diverse coalition of stakeholders, including AARP, AFL-CIO, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, and many others have registered strong support for the rule. But let's be clear: support for the final rule is not limited to those who represent and advocate for consumers and workers. Initial reactions to the final rule from Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, TIAA, Morgan Stanley, and others in the financial services sector have been positive and encouraging. Other companies appear to be reserving judgment on the rule until they better understand its full implications, and that is understandable. But House Republicans have not reserved judgment. They have rushed to judgment in their opposition to the final rule. That is unfortunate because the final rule is a responsible solution to a real problem. The rule will help workers enjoy a dignified retirement, and this resolution would reject the rule. Mr. Speaker, this resolution should be rejected for what it is: an effort to perpetuate an unacceptable status quo that allows some advisers to operate under a business model that puts their interests and their financial interests ahead of their clients' interests. We should protect workers' hard-earned retirement funds and reject this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a leader on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who has worked hard on this issue.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a strong consumer advocate.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a hardworking advocate for workers.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we possibly have two more speakers. Will the gentleman from Tennessee advise me how many more speakers he has remaining.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.