Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I think we have two more speakers, including myself.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the Budget Committee. (Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Even with these additional investments, our budget is projected to put our Nation back on a sustainable path because the deficit reduction is more than the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission 10-year goal. Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget shows that we can create jobs, invest in education, transportation, and research, and avoid devastating health care cuts and achieve the 10-year Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction goal. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. The underlying Republican budget dismantles the Medicare guarantee. It cuts Medicaid in the last year by 25 percent and includes unspecified cuts in a category called ``other mandatory spending.'' That category, of course, is Social Security and pensions for veterans and Federal employees. And then it cuts other essential Federal programs. It also repeals ObamaCare, but keeps in place the savings and tax increases that pay for it. The Republican budget also includes a $5.7 trillion tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans and then somehow claims it will be revenue neutral by raising somebody else's taxes by $5.7 trillion, an average of about $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in America every year. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget on the other hand is based on reality and uses real numbers. Our budget makes tough choices, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. The CBC budget calls for revenue enhancements of $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years. The budget shows that this is a real and achievable goal by highlighting approximately $4.2 trillion in revenue options that the Congress could use to achieve the $2.7 trillion in new revenues, such as limiting the deductibility of corporate interest payments, limiting the special tax breaks and corporate loopholes that are baked into our Tax Code, treating capital gains and dividends like regular income. And, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, this amount is less than half of the $5.7 trillion in tax increases assumed in the Republican budget. The revenue enhancements called for in our budget will be used to totally cancel the sequester, to pay for a $500 billion jobs bill that will put more than 5 million Americans back to work, and to provide for an additional $300 billion in long-term investments in our economy through education, job training, health care, science, and research.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget claims to be in balance, but it's only in balance if you assume they can raise $5.7 trillion in new taxes and they cut $2.5 trillion in health care and a trillion dollars more in a category that includes Social Security and pensions. I'd also note that a great deal has been made about the capital gains and dividend benefits in 401(k)s. I would point out to the gentleman that in a 401(k) the people do not get the benefit of that deduction. They don't pay any tax at all as it grows. When they draw it out, they draw it out as ordinary income. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. We are prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the Congressional Black Caucus to offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just before I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. First of all, the gentleman just complained about the ObamaCare taxes. What he didn't say is that the Republican budget keeps all the taxes; they just repeal the benefits. The Republican budget also does not cancel the sequester. The sequester is estimated to cost 700,000 to 2 million jobs. They do not cancel the sequester. In fact, they have additional cuts that will even add to those job losses. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was on the Budget Committee--I'm not this year--but I have done a lot of work on the Budget Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you. And I want to thank you for your leadership. I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada for his leadership on this matter, and the chair of the Black Caucus, Marcia Fudge. Mr. Speaker, the Simpson-Bowles Commission several years ago set a $4 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction goal as the amount of deficit reduction we needed to get our budget under control. The CBC does not endorse the specific recommendations of that goal, but our budget does accept the overall spending limitations of the deficit reduction goals. Based on most analyses, we have already passed, and the President has signed into law, approximately $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2022, not including the sequester. So to reach the goal, we need an additional $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction. So working off the CBO's baseline, we first instruct the Ways and Means Committee to enhance revenues by $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That is not an extraordinary figure. Just a few weeks ago, we passed a $3.9 trillion extension in tax cuts. So going back over that and coming up with $2.7 trillion is certainly within the realm of possibility. Now, we don't just make the number up. We show $4.2 trillion in possible options in coming up with the $2.7 trillion. That would include limiting the deductibility of corporate interest payments, ending a lot of numerous special interest tax breaks that corporations enjoy; money can be raised by capital gains and dividends being taxed as ordinary income without a special benefit; a surcharge of 5.4 percent on that portion of your income over a million dollars--a speculator's tax--reducing the extension of tax cuts down to the first $250,000 rather than $450,000 of income; and several other specific recommendations to choose from to show that the $2.7 trillion is a reasonable figure. Now, I know those are unpopular; but they're not nearly as unpopular as the sequester and cuts in health care, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. The revenue enhancements called for will be used to first cancel the sequester. Everybody's talking about how bad it is. Our budget cancels the sequester altogether. Then we pay for a $500 billion jobs plan that will put at least 45 million Americans back at work. And then we provide an additional $280 billion in long-term investments in our economy through education, job training, health care, and advanced science and research. Even with these investments, our budget is projected to reduce the deficit by approximately $2.8 trillion over the decade, compared to the CBO's baseline, which, incidentally, does not include the savings that we will achieve through the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That will put us on a sustainable goal. It more than meets the Simpson-Bowles goal. So we feel that is a responsible goal. This number is actually pessimistic because with the jobs bill, we think we're going to do a lot better because of the stimulative effect it has on the economy. Now, this is in stark contrast to the committee report, which has vague numbers--numbers that don't add up or don't give you a clue as to how they're going to get the money. The budget has a reduction in tax rates, does not say how you're going to make that revenue-neutral or by where you're going to find the $4 trillion to $5 trillion in taxes that would be needed to make it revenue-neutral. They block-grant Medicaid. By the time you get to the end of 10 years, it's about one-third of what it needs to be to maintain present benefits. Two-thirds of Medicaid are the elderly and disabled. So if you're cutting them, what exactly are your plans for them? If you look at their budget, they claim $4.5 trillion in deficit reduction. A trillion is repealing ObamaCare, but keeping all of the taxes and pay-fors that paid for ObamaCare, and $1.5 billion is cutting Medicaid and Medicare. So that's almost a trillion in unspecified mandatory spending. Most mandatory spending is Social Security. They don't specify where that's coming from. Three-fourths of the rest is interest on what is not going to happen. On the other hand, the CBC budget specifically outlines where we're going to get the money. Then, it creates 5 million jobs, invests in education, transportation, health care, and research. And in the end, it has more than the Simpson-Bowles goal of deficit reduction. It is a plan that's specific. It can be done. And if we adopt the Congressional Black Caucus budget, we will more than achieve the Simpson-Bowles goals of deficit reduction and create 5 million jobs. I thank the gentleman for his leadership,

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank you for yielding, and most of all I thank you for your leadership in the firearms task force, the prevention of gun violence. You've done a tremendous job in bringing diverse views into focus to respond appropriately to the children who were murdered senselessly in Newtown, Connecticut. They were young people, babies, whose bodies were riddled with bullets. I think finally we have concluded that we have to do something in response to the murders. One of the things we have to do is reduce violence generally--and violence prevention. This week I'll be introducing the Youth PROMISE Act, which has a proactive approach to make sure that young people get on the right track and stay on the right track. We have to deal, as you have indicated, with the mental health challenges. Those with mental health challenges have to get services, because if they're allowed to roam the streets with untreated mental health problems, you have a lot of difficulties. There have to be some firearm-specific situations, such as an assault weapons ban, limiting the size of magazines, background checks, but also straw purchases, people who buy firearms for others knowing they could not buy them for themselves. Violating the law and circumventing the good background check processes we have has to be dealt with. So I thank you for your leadership. I thank you for all that you have done. We have a lot that we can do in response to Newtown, and we expect to do it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 338, the Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2013. This bill is simple and straightforward. It amends the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act by including American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam in this act. Currently, the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act makes it illegal to knowingly ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute, or purchase 10,000 or more contraband cigarettes that do not have a State or territorial tax stamp. The act similarly applies to the sale of contraband smokeless tobacco in excess of certain specified quantities. With respect to both activities, the act authorizes the imposition of criminal penalties and fines. As drafted, however, the bill does not apply to American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. Thus, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is prohibited from investigating Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act violations in those territories. H.R. 338 will cure this obvious oversight. Mr. Speaker, cigarettes are believed to be the most illegally trafficked product in the world. In 2006 alone, more than 10 percent of worldwide sales, or 600 billion cigarettes, were counterfeited. Contraband cigarettes actually present numerous issues. Legally manufactured cigarettes are diverted from legal trade channels in the underworld for resale, evading the imposition of appropriate taxes, costing territorial governments a significant amount of cigarette excess tax revenue each year. They also facilitate unfair competition that hurts the bottom line of legitimate businesses. Counterfeit cigarettes are also not subjected to any manufacturing safeguards, therefore presenting the potential for products containing toxic ingredients that can seriously jeopardize the health and safety of the smoker. The lower price also facilitates easier affordability for our youth, resulting in addiction at earlier ages. The illicit trade therefore adds steadily to the health care costs of worker productivity losses and the growing death from tobacco use. Currently, the use of tobacco claims 5.4 million lives a year. This number is projected to rise to 8 million by 2013. For these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 338 and thank our colleague from American Samoa, Delegate Faleomavaega, for his leadership in spearheading this issue. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the delegate from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm proud to join the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan, who were leaders in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006. They were there and have been fighting the battle for voting rights for a long time. The leadership in reauthorization was obviously the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). Mr. Speaker, a right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy. The Supreme Court noted in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964 that no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. From its initial passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congress has relied on an extensive record of discrimination in voting to justify the continued need for remedies imposed by the expiring provisions. In the original enactment of the Voting Rights Act and its subsequent reauthorization, Congress has made sure that voting rights remedies are proportionate to the problems Congress sought to secure. In the reauthorization process in 2006, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan made sure that we listened to each and every witness. They had long hearings and heard all kinds of different schemes to undermine the right to vote; and in the end, we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act. As a result of the Voting Rights Act, since 1964--it was passed in 1965, but since 1964, the number of Black elected officials has increased from a nationwide total of 300 in 1964 to over 9,000 today. The Congressional Black Caucus grew from three prior to the Voting Rights Act to 43 today. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, my home State, there were no African Americans in the General Assembly in 1965. Now there are 18 members of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus. Clearly, these numbers show that many of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act have made a difference. Section 5 is one of the Voting Rights Act's most important provisions. It requires covered jurisdictions to submit planned changes in their election laws to Federal officials for prior approval. They have to show that the change does not have a discriminatory effect or intent. The jurisdictions covered by section 5 were selected the old fashioned way: they earned it, by implementing poll taxes, literacy tests, gerrymandered election districts and other schemes. Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to section 5. In Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge will be to try to eliminate the requirement for covered jurisdictions to secure that pre-clearance from the Department of Justice or a Federal Court in Washington, D.C. They are arguing that the current evidence of racial discriminatory practices in covered jurisdictions is inadequate to support section 5; but the record of section 5-based objections has shown that section 5 is needed. Since 2006, when we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, more than 750 objections have been lodged by the Department of Justice to changes in election procedures through the pre-clearance provision in section 5, finding that those 750 changes violated the Voting Rights Act. Those are changes in election laws that the jurisdictions knew they had to submit to Justice. Now, just exactly what kind of changes would they have enacted if they hadn't been required to pre-clear their new laws? Their bipartisan congressional report in 1982 warned that without this section discrimination would reappear overnight. That's because without this section there would be no effective deterrent in passing discriminatory laws. Section 5 offers a type of relief that is not available in any other provision of the act. Without section 5's relief, jurisdictions with a history of discrimination could pass discriminatory changes in their election laws, and then the victim of the discrimination would bear the costs of litigation and bear the burden of proof to overturn the law. If overturned, finally, then they could do another scheme and the process would start all over. If those impacted negatively by the discriminatory laws could not raise the money, then they're just stuck with the discriminatory plan. Now, a lot of these plans are inflicted on small counties where people just do not have the resources to launch expensive, complex litigation. And so it is unfair to impose on them the burden of protecting their voting rights when you know from history that the covered jurisdictions have a history of discrimination. Now, one of the problems with the elimination of section 5 is that once the small counties raise all the money, get to litigation, finally get a final judgment, and overturn it, the perpetrators of the scheme already would have achieved their goal. They got elected. They were able to represent the area and cast all the votes. And then in the end, when they're finally caught discriminating, they get to run as incumbents, with all the advantages of incumbency. The magic of section 5 is that the illegal scheme never goes into effect to begin with. Now, there is a provision, as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, for covered jurisdictions to bail out if they feel they have stopped discriminating. But all they have to do to bail out is first prove that they haven't gotten caught discriminating in 10 years. Now, the process is simple. For those who have attempted to bail out, they've been able to bail out. There is no barrier, essentially no barrier, to bailing out from under the provisions of section 5, other than the fact that you couldn't have been caught discriminating in the previous 10 years. Striking section 5 will essentially turn our country to a pre-1965 election system. Mr. Speaker, at a time when America has staked so much of its international reputation on the need to spread democracy around the world, we must ensure its vitality here at home and preserve section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for all of his leadership in voting rights and civil rights over the years.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, our right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy. In passing the Voting Rights Act, Congress relied on an extensive record of discrimination in voting. Section 5 is one of the act's most important provisions. It requires covered jurisdictions to submit planned changes in their election laws to Federal officials and judges for prior approval. The areas covered by section 5 were covered the old-fashioned way--they earned it--by implementing poll taxes, literacy tests, gerrymandered election districts, and other schemes. If the Supreme Court invalidates section 5 in its upcoming decision in Shelby County v. Holder, it would essentially allow jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to implement any discriminatory voter scheme and to then place the burden on the victims to raise the money to bring a lawsuit and to, meanwhile, suffer under the discriminatory scheme until the Court rules. Then, without section 5, those same jurisdictions could create another scheme and repeat the whole process. Mr. Speaker, at a time when America has staked so much of its international reputation on the need to spread democracy around the world, we must ensure its vitality here at home and preserve section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, which would add ``houses of worship'' to the list of eligible entities that can receive direct government assistance from FEMA. While the devastation caused to many communities after Hurricane Sandy is severe, and while I empathize with the desire to assist all who have suffered severe losses, direct government funding for houses of worship, whether for building or rebuilding, remains unconstitutional. The establishment clause in the First Amendment protects religious freedom by preventing the government from endorsing and funding any one religion--or all religions. And while well intended, this bill would violate years of precedents interpreting the establishment clause. In Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, a 1973 case which upheld the principles of Everson v. Board of Education, from 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court held that no taxpayer funds could be used for maintenance and repair of facilities in which religious activities take place, explaining: If the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place, it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair. Accordingly, longstanding precedent specifically holds that taxpayer funds cannot go to construct, rebuild or repair buildings used for religious activities. The type of buildings that this bill seeks to make eligible for direct government funding--houses of worship--are inherently used for religious activities and the bill would have the effect of unconstitutionally funneling taxpayer money for religious activities. Other cases have also upheld the precedent established in Everson v. Board of Education and have further clarified the application of the establishment clause to cases of direct religious funding. In Tilton v. Richardson, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a government subsidy used to construct buildings at colleges and universities was constitutional but only if the buildings were never used for religious activities. In Hunt v. McNair, 1973, the Supreme Court upheld a South Carolina law which established an ``educational facilities authority'' that issued bonds to finance construction and renovation of facilities at educational institutions was upheld because it included a condition that government-financed buildings could never be used for religious worship or instruction. All of these cases firmly establish that it is constitutionally impermissible for the government to provide direct subsidization of religious institutions for the construction, repair or maintenance of any building that is, or even might be, used for religious purposes. Houses of worship clearly fall within this category of buildings and based on a long line of Supreme Court cases cannot be publicly funded and cannot be recipients of direct grant funding. Now, there are constitutional ways to assist churches along with other community organizations. Loan programs, such as the government- sponsored small business loan programs available to any business in a community, could also be used by churches. Such loan programs have been upheld as constitutional so long as they are both neutral on their face and in their application and so long as their purpose is not to aid religious institutions specifically. In Mitchell v. Helms, 2000, the Supreme Court held that loan programs for religious institutions are allowable in some cases. However, such programs are distinguishable from grants and are further distinguishable from the direct funding of church facilities that are, or may be, used for religious purposes. The opinion included that: Of course, we have seen special establishment clause dangers when money is given to religious schools or entities rather than indirectly. Justice O'Connor noted the Court's ``continued recognition of the special dangers associated with direct money grants to religious institutions.'' Now, therefore, H.R. 592 clearly violates the principles prohibiting direct government grants to religious institutions. It also violates any possible exemption that could be available under the theory of neutrality--the standards in this bill applicable to houses of worship are different from the standards for other entities. While I'm in favor of constitutionally permissible ways to assist churches that have been damaged by natural disasters, this bill clearly does not do so in a constitutionally permissible way; and for this reason, I must oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to instead work together to ensure that all entities affected by Hurricane Sandy can be assisted in an expeditious and constitutionally permissible manner. American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, February 12, 2013. Re Oppose H.R. 592, the so-called Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-partisan organization with more than a half million members, countless additional activists and supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide dedicated to the principles of individual liberty and justice embodied in the U.S. Constitution, we are writing to urge you to vote ``No'' on H.R. 592 when the measure comes up on the suspension calendar on Wednesday. This bill, which would authorize FEMA to provide houses of worship with direct grants of taxpayer funds, would flout longstanding constitutional law and harm religious liberty. The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment was devised to prohibit ``[t]he imposition of taxes to . . . build and maintain churches and church property,'' because such funding is an affront to ``individual religious liberty.'' Accordingly, longstanding Court precedent specifically holds that taxpayer funds cannot go to construct, rebuild, or repair buildings used for religious activities--which clearly includes houses of worship. The Court has never retreated from this bedrock Establishment Clause principle. In fact, the Supreme Court continues to recognize ``special Establishment Clause dangers where the government makes direct money payments to sectarian institutions,'' which is exactly the use of taxpayer funds at issue here. And in a variety of bills over the past several decades, Congress has prohibited the use of funds to construct buildings used for religious purposes. Indeed, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress again recognized this prohibition and limited green construction funding to buildings in which secular activities take place. Under current policy, houses of worship may obtain government loans--just not direct grants--to rebuild. All for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations--including houses of worship--are eligible to participate in the SBA Disaster Loan Program. Houses of worship, therefore, are not without government help to rebuild. Moreover, houses of worship are not the only non-profit facilities that would otherwise be ineligible for direct grants for reconstruction. Only non-profits with facilities used for emergency, essential, and government-like activities are eligible for grants. Thus, FEMA grants are not the same as ``general government services,'' like police or fire, which are available to every business, nonprofit, private residence, and house of worship. To say that the policy is unfair or that houses of worship are treated unequally--singled out among all other non-profits--therefore, is untrue. Although houses of worship may serve a central role in the lives of their congregants, it is impossible to see how the prayer and worship conducted in these sacred buildings is equivalent to the essential, government-like activities in facilities that would be eligible for government grants. It would be a dangerous precedent to equate religious worship with the vital services government provides. And while houses of worship may host educational and social activities, only community centers that are open to the general public on a nondiscriminatory basis, serve the entire community (not just congregants), and are used for a range of different activities are eligible for a FEMA grant. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration directed that houses of worship would remain ineligible for FEMA funds. The Bush administration respected longstanding Supreme Court precedent and continued to adhere to this constitutional requirement. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples were damaged in Katrina just as they were in Sandy. As an organization whose offices were closed for weeks as a result, we very much understand the serious difficulties faced by people who were impacted by superstorm Sandy--so many of our friends and colleagues in New York and New Jersey continue to deal with its aftermath. But, the harm would be compounded if this misfortune were used as a reason to erode fundamental religious liberty protections enshrined in the First Amendment. Religious liberty is one of our nation's most fundamental values and it starts from the principle that religion thrives when both religion and government are safeguarded from the undue influences of the other. Barring federal funds for the rebuilding of houses of worship is not discriminatory or hostile to religion--it is one of the most fundamental ways we have to protect and defend religious liberty for all. Indeed, the Establishment Clause protects religious freedom by preventing the government from endorsing and funding any one religion--or all religions. Because H.R. 592 would flout longstanding constitutional law and harm religious liberty, we urge you to oppose the measure and vote ``No'' when the measure comes up on the suspension calendar on Wednesday. Please contact Legislative Counsel Dena Sher if you have questions or comments about our concerns. Sincerely, Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office. Dena Sher, Legislative Counsel.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Center to Advance, Monitor and Preserve University Security (``CAMPUS'') Safety Act of 2013. The CAMPUS Safety Act previously passed the House of Representatives by voice vote as a standalone bill in the 110th and 111th Congresses and was included in the House-passed versions of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008 in the 110th Congress and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 in the 112th Congress. It is my hope that the CAMPUS Safety Act will be signed into law during the 113th Congress. The purpose of the legislation is to enable our institutions of higher education to more easily obtain the best information available on how to keep our campuses safe and how to respond in the event of a campus emergency. The bill creates a National Center for Campus Public Safety (``Center''), which will be administered through the Department of Justice. The Center is designed to train campus public safety agencies in state of the art practices to assure campus safety, encourage research to strengthen college safety and security, and serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of relevant campus public safety information. The Director of the Center will have authority to award grants to institutions of higher learning to help them meet their enhanced public safety goals. Over the past few years we have seen numerous tragedies occur at colleges and universities, including the disastrous events that occurred at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University and more recently at Old Dominion University that took the life of Congressman Elijah Cummings' nephew. Unfortunately, these events were the first of their kind at their schools and there was insufficient knowledge on how to prevent the tragedies or how to most effectively respond in their aftermath. While there is growing awareness that such threats are possible anywhere, many schools still have not developed safety protocols that would prepare them to maximize the prospects of preventing such tragedies or to effectively respond to them should they occur despite sound prevention efforts. Our nation's colleges and universities play a large role in the development of our next generation of leaders and we should assist them in their efforts to keep our campuses and our students safe. The Clery Act already requires schools to have safety plans in order to participate in the Title IV deferral student aid programs; unfortunately there is no one place for schools to obtain reliable and useful information. It makes little sense to require the thousands of institutions of higher education to start from scratch and individually go through the cost and effort to develop comprehensive plans. Instead, they ought to be able to obtain guidance and assistance, including best practices, from a ``one stop shop'' like the Center. The CAMPUS Safety Act will help institutions of higher learning understand how to prevent such tragedies from occurring, and how to respond immediately and effectively in case they do. Although this bill was originally drafted in direct response to the Virginia Tech shootings to specifically assist college and university campuses, I should note that in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, public elementary and secondary schools and their governing agencies will be able to access the informational and training benefits of the Center. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation to ensure that our institutions of higher education have access to the information necessary to keep their schools safe.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object-- and I will not object--I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas and his colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe) and our colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their hard work on this bill, which would make funding for the testing of DNA rape kits and eliminating the rape kit background more possible. A lot of people will be made much safer because of this, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2076. The House originally passed this bill in September of 2001 by an overwhelming vote. H.R. 2076 gives the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the specific statutory authority to respond to requests from State and local law enforcement agencies for assistance in investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in public places and in investigations of mass killings and attempted mass killings. The House-passed version of the bill only applied to the FBI providing assistance. The Senate amended the bill to include all DOJ and Department of Homeland Security law enforcement agencies. Therefore, under the version of the bill before the House today, the Department of Justice's agencies, such as the FBI, DEA, Marshal Service and ATF, would be able to provide assistance, as would the Department of Homeland Security's law enforcement agencies, such as Secret Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, if requested by local and State law enforcement agencies. These Federal agencies do not currently have the specific statutory authority to assist in the investigations of mass killings or attempted mass killings occurring in venues such as schools, colleges, universities, non-Federal office buildings, malls and/or other public places. In particular, while the FBI continues to receive requests for such assistance from State and local law enforcement, and the FBI often does assist in such circumstances, there is presently technically no Federal statute that directly provides jurisdiction to the FBI to respond to such requests. Legislation granting the proposed investigative authority would allow these Federal agencies to provide State and local law enforcement with the assistance, if requested, even when the violent act does not technically violate a Federal law. Unfortunately, due to the tragic shooting and killing of 20 students and six teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, the consideration of this bill is timely. Of course, we should pass the bill today so that the President may sign it into law. But, Madam Speaker, while we must take steps to assist in the investigation of such incidents, it is even more critical that we prevent them from occurring in the first place. Proposals to do that include not only legislation involving gun safety, but also legislation such as the Youth Promise Act, which would provide funding for comprehensive juvenile justice initiatives, or additional funding for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, or the Campus Safety Act, which are all pending, as well as increased funding for mental health services and school counselors. We simply must do all we can to protect our citizens, and these proposals must be enacted as soon as possible. But with respect to H.R. 2076, the bill before us today, I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) for his leadership on this bill and urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 2076. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).