Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4305, the Child and Elderly Missing Alert Program. This important measure will assist law enforcement agencies to address the terrifying experience of when a child, elderly person, or other family member or friend goes missing. The number of individuals that go missing each year is staggering. For example, a child goes missing almost every 40 seconds in the United States. That's about 800,000 children reported missing every year. The adults suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia also become missing persons. These diseases cause many of their suffers to become disoriented and lost; and because of their condition, these individuals are often unable to assist first responders in finding their way back to their caregivers. It is currently estimated that about 5\1/2\ million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease. In about 2050, that number may go up to 16 million. Locating a missing individual must be done quickly. Research has shown that time is of the essence with missing persons. The first hours of disappearance are the most vital. According to a study by the attorney general of Washington State and the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of children abducted and murdered were killed within the first 3 hours. Half of the elderly adults who wander from their homes suffer serious injury or death if not found within 24 hours. Accordingly, alerts to law enforcement in those crucial first few hours after a person goes missing is obviously very critical. H.R. 4305 facilitates targeting telephone and cellular alerts to residents and businesses in the area where the person was last seen. The residents and businesses are able to opt out if they choose to, but most of the people obviously want this information. H.R. 4305 will help provide meaningful aid to law enforcement in recovering missing children, elderly people, and the disabled. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6185, the Local Courthouse Safety Act. This measure will provide critical assistance to State and local governments to provide courthouse security. To begin with, many State and local courthouses face serious security challenges. Serious violence often occurs in these facilities, but many courthouses across the Nation still lack basic security protections such as metal detectors. H.R. 6185 responds to this critical problem by giving sheriffs, as well as State and local courthouses, access to training, equipment, and other resources to help them improve security. H.R. 6185 accomplishes these goals by making use of existing resources. This legislation requires the General Services Administration to make available to State and local courts--at no cost, except for shipping, handling, and maintenance--surplus security equipment that is used to detect weapons, such as metal detectors, wands, and baggage screening devices. To qualify to receive such security equipment, a State or local courthouse must have less security equipment than necessary to meet the security needs of that courthouse. Because these devices are surplus and not otherwise being utilized by any Federal agencies, it is a wise use of taxpayer money to allow this equipment to be put into service at the State and local level. Another important aspect of the bill is that it expands the scope of the grants awarded by the State Justice Institute to include the improvement of the safety and security of State and local courts. As a result, H.R. 6185 strengthens the Institute's current authority to award grants to support education, training, and technical assistance projects to improve the administration of justice in the State courts. This measure addresses, in a meaningful way, the serious security challenges that State and local courthouses face. Not surprisingly, H.R. 6185 enjoys a broad range of support, including the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association for Court Management, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, American Judges Association, the National Court Reporters Association, and the Center for Judicial and Executive Security. I commend my colleague, the gentlelady from Florida (Mrs. Adams) for her work in developing the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a legacy of faith in Virginia's Third Congressional District. This year, West End Baptist Church in Hampton, Virginia is celebrating its 120th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed institution and its contributions to the greater Hampton Roads community. The story of West End Baptist Church begins on December 12, 1892, when Robert and Mary Herbert sold a piece of land forty feet by one hundred feet to Joshua Morris, Isaiah Dillard and John Seton, Trustees of West End Baptist Church, for $75.00. It was recorded that the land be used solely for the purpose of building a church. In 1901, the West End Baptist Church was up and running under the leadership of Pastor Linas. The fellowship began in the old Bates School House that was located where the Beau Brummell building now stands. After the death of Pastor Linas, Pastor Beverly Garner became his successor. He saw a need for a new sanctuary for his followers. The congregation began to build the new church at 2916 Shell Road. Unfortunately, Pastor Garner passed away before he could see his dream completed. However, the new church sanctuary was completed in 1903 under the leadership of Pastor Bray. After Pastor Bray's tenure, Pastor Hall was selected as the next leader and Pastor Atkins succeeded him. In 1965, Rev. Hallie Richardson, Sr. became West End Baptist Church's leader. He served faithfully until September 1990. During his ministry, the membership flourished. Due to the growth in the congregation, there again was a need for a larger sanctuary. The first service in the new sanctuary at 2413 Shell Road took place in July 1982, and West End Baptist Church has remained there to this day. Pastor Rufus Hill succeeded Pastor Richardson in September 1990, and he served until 1999. Guest ministers rendered services until April 2001. During this time, West End also saw its first woman, Edith Green, appointed to the Diaconate. Rev. James Gray was officially installed as Pastor on November 2, 2003 and served until 2007. Pastor Paul Sims was elected to serve as the 10th Pastor of West End Baptist Church in November 2008. Over the years, the West End Baptist community has continued to grow and flourish. Its members have offered programs in the Youth Ministry, Outreach Ministry, Culinary Ministry and more. In addition to Sunday prayer, the church offers Wednesday Noon Prayer Assembly. The Church is home to numerous bands and choirs. The church has also organized many functions including Children's Church, new converts' and new members' orientation classes, a monthly Men's Fellowship Breakfast, hot meals for the hungry and an Annual Homecoming. As West End Baptist Church gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on its future as ``the friendly church by the side of the road, in the heart of the community with the community at heart.'' I would like to congratulate Pastor Sims and all of the members of the West End Baptist Church on the occasion of their 120th Anniversary. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a legacy of faith and community in Virginia's Third Congressional District. This year, Wesley Grove United Church of Christ in Newport News, Virginia is celebrating its 125th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed institution and its contributions to the greater Newport News community. Originally organized in 1887 by a group including Reverend J.H. Edlow and Deacon G. Wesley Raney, the Wesley Grove congregation originally met in a building just 20 by 30 feet, at the time too large for the small congregation. As a poor congregation, it was difficult for them to pay for this space. Fortunately, the congregation found ways to make ends meet, and in 1895, under Reverend James M. Parson, a new house of worship was completed. In 1897, Elder S.A. Howell became pastor of the Church. As time went by, the congregation continued to expand, eventually growing to over 1,000 and finding itself in need of a larger place of worship. Under the leadership of Reverend Howell, a new building was constructed on the 700 block of 19th Street in Newport News. Dedicated in 1900, this building was used by the congregation under the leadership of Reverend T.S. Crayton, Reverend J.B. Jones, Reverend Thomas J. Moore, and Reverend Zander P. Jenkins. In 1964, under the leadership of Reverend Jenkins, having once again outgrown their place of worship due to mergers with other congregations, the Wesley Grove congregation completed the purchase of a building owned by another local church. Reverend Jenkins, feeling called to serve elsewhere, left the congregation in 1970. Over the next few years, the congregation struggled without a pastor at times. Reverend Vernon Harris served the congregation for a year in 1972 before Reverend Jenkins, having fulfilled his calling to other congregations, returned in 1974. Unfortunately, Reverend Jenkins passed away suddenly, leaving Wesley Grove again without a pastor. With Reverend Jenkins' passing, Reverend G. Wesley Raney, III, the grandson of one of Wesley Grove's founders, proved ready to lead the congregation. During his ministry, the church flourished. Feeling called to pastor a church in another state, Reverend Raney left Wesley Grove in 1985, and was succeeded by Reverend Isaac L. McDonald. Under his leadership, numerous programs were established to help Newport News youth excel in their educational pursuits. Reverend McDonald was succeeded by Reverend Prince Raney Rivers, who was called to minister Wesley Grove as both a pastor and a teacher until 2005. A descendant of one of the founders of the church, Reverend Rivers presided over another period of tremendous growth for the church. Under his leadership, the Church established new ministries, expanded membership, and created lasting community partnerships to address issues and challenges facing the community. Reverend McDonald was succeeded by Reverend Dr. Alexander Jamison, Sr., who served the community from 2007 until 2011. Wesley Grove remains committed to maintaining its legacy of faith and community action to this day. With a congregation that has historically included a large number of professionals in the field of education, Wesley Grove established education programs that include after school tutoring and Project REACT, a technology focused tutoring program to help improve students' performance. It has also provided numerous scholarships to college bound students, including the G. Wesley Raney III Scholarship, the Olivia Smith Scholarship, and the Emma Gupton Scholarship. Wesley Grove also has an accomplished and talented choir program, featuring a men's choir, a senior's choir, and a children's choir. These programs, amongst others, continue to demonstrate Wesley Grove's commitment to the Newport News community. As the Wesley Grove United Church of Christ gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on its future. I would like to congratulate all of the members of the Wesley Grove United Church of Christ on the occasion of its 125th Anniversary, and I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr SCOTT of Virginia

Mr SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in regard to H.R. 3796, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012. H.R. 3796 authorizes various grant programs originally established pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. While I support reauthorizing these programs, I am concerned about what is missing from H.R. 3796. Unfortunately, the bill fails to address the many problems that the States and Indian tribes have encountered in implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, known as SORNA, which is one of the provisions of the original Adam Walsh Act. So far, only 15 States have been found by the Attorney General to be in compliance. Years before SORNA became law, many States had developed their own sex offender registries and dedicated substantial resources and research to develop effective sex offender management systems. To ignore these efforts in favor of SORNA'S prescriptive ``one size fits all'' system is not only wasteful, but it could adversely affect public safety. I offered 10 amendments in the full committee markup of the bill seeking to provide States and tribes with more flexibility to cost effectively manage sex offenders and to more fully comply with SORNA. Despite the committee's failure to adopt all of these proposed improvements, there are several positive aspects of H.R. 3796 that make changes to the underlying bill which will assist States in this regard. For example, the bill, as amended, ensures that provisions of the Byrne JAG grant funding, intended for distribution to local governments and entities, are not penalized by the States' noncompliance with SORNA. In the absence of this provision, States that have been unable to comply with SORNA would soon suffer up to a 10 percent reduction in their Byrne JAG grant awards, which is a particularly harsh penalty in these difficult economic times. H.R. 3796 at least ensures that the localities that have no control over whether or not a State complies with SORNA are not penalized. Three other positive aspects of the bill, as amended, are the following: the bill gives flexibility to put juveniles on a law enforcement agency registry only, not on the public registry, that is, juveniles can be only in the law enforcement-only registry, but not publicized. We had heard testimony that putting juveniles on a public registry would actually be counterproductive, and this bill protects that. The bill reauthorizes funding under the Adam Walsh Act for treatment of juvenile sex offenders. And the bill requires the public safety impact of long-term or lifetime registration on juvenile registrants to be studied. Finally, H.R. 3796 lowers the age after which certain juveniles adjudicated delinquent with a clean record can apply for removal from the sex offender registry from 25 years down to 15 years. This is an improvement to current law, given the research documenting that sex offender treatment reduces recidivism by more than 90 percent for juveniles and that long-term public registry adversely impacts the rehabilitation of teenage offenders, though for the same reasons it would have been best to eliminate the requirement to put juveniles on the registry in the first place. I am pleased, therefore, that H.R. 3796, in reauthorizing the Adam Walsh Act, has improved at least in these aspects. I regret that it didn't improve some of the things that weren't addressed in the bill. But I think it's important that we pass the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6062, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2012. The Federal justice grants reauthorized under this legislation provide critical funding to State and local jurisdictions in their efforts to combat crime. Especially during periods of national budgetary constraints affecting the bottom lines of States and local governments, the Byrne JAG grants are particularly important. Across our Nation, many jurisdictions, to shore up their budgets, are actually laying off police officers. When many of our citizens are experiencing economic hardship, we must not add to their burden by allowing public safety to suffer. H.R. 6062 reaffirms the Federal Government's commitment to assisting State and local governments in their effort to prevent and fight crime. But reauthorization of the Byrne JAG grant program is obviously just a first step. We must also follow through with actually appropriating sufficient funds for the program. In addition, we should encourage allocation of grant funds to the full range of programs that State and local governments are allowed to fund. Under current law, State and local governments may use Byrne JAG funding for programs or projects that improve law enforcement efforts; prosecution and court programs; prevention and education programs; corrections and community corrections; drug treatment programs; planning, evaluation, and technology projects; and crime victim and witness programs. Each of these are essential to a comprehensive effort to protect us from crime, and, therefore, all of them should receive significant funding under the Byrne JAG grant program. An imbalance in justice assistance funding creates an imbalance in anticrime efforts. Specifically, an appropriate amount of funding should be allocated to prevent crime, which will help reduce the amount of money needed to fund the after-crime cost of investigation, prosecution, incarceration, and victim assistance. We must also assist State and local governments to fund public defender programs in recognition of the fact that the public is also protected from injustice when we safeguard the Sixth Amendment rights of our citizens. Finally, it is essential that the full range of other programs that assist State and local public safety initiatives, including the COPS program, are adequately funded. The COPS program has funded the hiring of more than 123,000 State and local police officers and sheriff's deputies in communities across our Nation, and it has been proven to be extremely effective in reducing crime. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 6062, and I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) for his work on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 6062 so that we can reaffirm our commitment to funding public safety programs, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 6063. While I can appreciate the apparent attempt in the bill to better protect children who are victims of sexual abuse, it not only fails to achieve that objective, but it also presents serious constitutional concerns and other problematic provisions. First, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption in 18 U.S.C. section 1514 that, if an individual posts a photograph or personal identifying information about a person subject to a protective order, it ``serves no legitimate purpose,'' which is an essentiable element of the offense of harassment and intimidation. This rebuttable presumption would shift the burden of proof in these cases from the accuser to the accused by requiring the accused to prove that posting of the photograph or information about the person served a legitimate purpose. Therefore, under current law and the fundamental principles of the Constitution, the burden is on the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this element of the offense, not the obligation of the accused to prove his innocence. This provision violates the constitutional rights of defendants who may be innocent of the underlying charge and who are entitled to be presumed innocent. The coincidental inclusion of a protected person in a family photo posted over Facebook or an email, which may be unintentional and coincidental, should not be presumed to be a crime. What's wrong with the normal process by which the accuser has to show that the posting was for harassment or intimidation? To make an innocent person prove his innocence is not only unnecessary and unfair, but unconstitutional. In Francis v. Franklin, a 1985 Supreme Court case, the government argued that the constitutional issue regarding the rebuttable presumption there was overcome by the defendant's ability to rebut the presumption. The Supreme Court, however, found that argument unpersuasive. The Court said that a mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it must infer the presumed fact if the State presumes certain predicate facts. Such a presumption can be conclusive or rebuttable. The key is whether it is mandatory, that is, whether the jury must make a presumption, possibly subject to rebuttal, if the State proves certain facts. In light of the fact that section 3(d)(2) of H.R. 6063 explicitly mandates the court shall presume there was no legitimate purpose, this provision is exactly the kind of mandatory rebuttable presumption that the Court repudiated in the Francis decision. Another problem with the bill is it adds a new criminal offense of violating a protective order. Minor activities that are not intended to cause harm or distress, such as a phone call or an email, can result in a Federal criminal charge, not as a violation of Federal law protecting a witness from harassment or intimidation--there are already laws against that--but as a technical violation of a civil order. Judges already have plenty of laws and authority to protect victims and witnesses. There's already a comprehensive statutory scheme in place to assist judges and law enforcement in protecting witnesses in Federal criminal proceedings. In addition to Federal criminal provisions with heavy penalties and the authority for judges to enter protective orders for the protection of all witnesses, including children, the judges have immense contempt and other powers to accomplish this goal. Thus, the additional criminal offense is unnecessary and unproductive. We should stop adding unnecessary criminal laws to the criminal code. In the previous Congress, we held hearings regarding the general problem of over-criminalization of conduct and the over-federalization of criminal law. Members of both parties then expressed concern over this. We already have over 4,000 Federal criminal offenses in the code, along with an estimated 300,000 Federal regulations that impose criminal penalties, often without clearly setting out what will be subject to criminal liability. This bill is yet another example of adding more unnecessary crimes and penalties to the Federal code. Moreover, such a provision moves the protection responsibility from the judge in the case to a prosecutor who decides when there is a violation and when to bring charges for the violations. Given the fact that many proceedings involving child witnesses also involve family members of the child witness in emotionally charged situations, the addition of more criminal provisions to this mix is not helpful. This provision allows the imposition of a Federal felony up to 5 years in prison for a violation. It is unnecessary, overbroad, and harsh, especially given a restraining order can be violated by simply making an innocent phone call. A further problem with H.R. 6063 is that it would give U.S. marshals the authority to issue administrative subpoenas to investigate unregistered sex offenders. I'm not convinced that extending this extraordinary ex parte judicial authority is appropriate. Research has clearly shown that registered sex offenders who may not be compliant with the law are actually no more apt to commit a criminal offense than those who are compliant. So there is no compelling reason to create a special authority for U.S. marshals in the case of registered or unregistered sex offenders. There's no urgent or imminent threat context in rounding up alleged noncompliant sex offenders which, as we said, are no more likely to commit a crime than those who are compliant with all of the technicalities of the law. The existing statutory scheme for administrative subpoenas for law enforcement focuses on extreme situations, such as the Presidential threat protection administrative subpoena. We approved that power a few years ago to assist in the protection of the President when the director of the Secret Service has determined that an imminent threat is posed against the life of the President of the United States, and he has to certify the same to the Secretary of the Treasury. And the Attorney General has the same kind of power in child exploitation cases. Both are Cabinet-level officials. I offered an amendment to remove the provisions extending this type of judicial authority to the U.S. Marshals Service. Upon the failure of that amendment, I then offered an amendment to continue limiting the authority to issue administrative subpoenas to Cabinet officials to ensure that this extraordinary judicial power is used discreetly and only in circumstances where it is absolutely warranted. Those amendments were defeated; and, therefore, this bill gives more power to the Marshals Service in cases where there is no proven need for the power, more power than the Secret Service has when faced with an imminent threat to the President of the United States. Despite serious constitutional issues and these other problems, this bill was introduced on June 29 and was marked up in committee 12 days later, on July 10, which was the very next day that Congress was in session. Clearly these provisions need more consideration. For these reasons, I urge that we defeat H.R. 6063. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1550, the Federal Law Enforcement Recruitment and Retention Act. This bill would require the Department of Justice to prioritize the placement and retention of personnel in those States and local jurisdictions that have high incidences of homicide and other violent crimes. The recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers has become increasingly difficult in recent years. These challenges are faced not only by State and local police agencies, but also by Federal law enforcement agencies. Difficulty in recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers is particularly acute in jurisdictions that experience high rates of violent crime. In fact, the high incidence of crime in a jurisdiction can deter a Federal law enforcement officer from seeking assignment in that jurisdiction and can frequently lead to high turnover. The failure to retain a law enforcement officer has been estimated to result in approximately $100,000 in additional costs for the Department of Justice. H.R. 1550, as amended, aims to address this problem by directing the Attorney General to give priority in placing and retaining agents in jurisdictions with particularly high crime rates. This bill also requires the Department of Justice to annually provide Congress with a detailed report on how it is implementing this directive. H.R. 1550 is a modest, but necessary, measure to focus our crime- fighting efforts on the areas most in need. I, too, want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), for his work in developing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1550. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands and the gentleman from Puerto Rico. I urge the passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4362. It amends the Federal aggravated identity theft statute to add tax fraud to the list of predicate offenses. The penalty for aggravated identity theft is a mandatory term of imprisonment of 2 years or, for a terrorism offense, 5 years. This bill would, therefore, subject more people to mandatory minimum sentences and, therefore, to all of the problems that have been repeatedly shown to be associated with mandatory minimum sentences. Fraud and identity theft are a serious and growing problem. But what we do to address the problems of fraud and identity theft should be measured and effective. While I appreciate the sentiments and efforts behind H.R. 4362, I cannot support an effort that seeks to stop one injustice by applying another. Because of the mandatory minimum sentences included in H.R. 4362, this bill is not an appropriate or effective solution to the problem of identity theft. I'm not saying someone who commits these crimes should not be sentenced to 2 or 5 years, or even more. But it is inappropriate and unjust for Congress to sentence an offender based solely on the name of the crime, years before any of the facts or circumstances of the case, or their role in the particular case and the character of the defendant, are known and taken into account. Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively, and have been found to distort rational sentencing systems, to discriminate against minorities, to waste the taxpayers' money, and often to violate common sense. Even if everyone involved in the case, from the arresting officer, the prosecutor, the judge, and even the victim, after all of the facts and circumstances of the case are presented at trial by the prosecution and defense, if they all conclude that the mandatory minimum sentence would be an unjust sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case, it must still be imposed. Mandatory minimum sentences, based merely on the name of the crime, remove the sentencing discretion and rationality from the judge, and often require him to impose sentences that violate common sense. This is what brings about the result such as girlfriends who end up with much more time than their crack-dealing boyfriends, and often have to serve terms of 10-20 years or more, teenagers having consensual sex with their girlfriends getting 10 years, or a recent case of Marissa Alexander in Florida, a mother of three and a graduate student, who was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 20 years for discharging a gun to warn off an abusive husband during a dispute. A warning shot. Ironically, if she had intentionally shot and killed him under those circumstances, the maximum penalty for voluntary manslaughter in that State is 15 years. If you want to know how those mandatory minimums pass, just watch this bill. I offered an amendment at the committee markup of the bill which would have provided a maximum sentence of 4 years and 10 years instead of the 2 or 5, respectively. That way, offenders whose conduct warranted it could be sentenced to higher amounts of time, if it was appropriate, but for those whose conduct did not, such as bit players and those who play a minor role in a minor offense, the judge could arrive at a proper sentence. It is the height of legislative arrogance, in my view, for Congress to conclude that it has a better perspective to arrive at an appropriate sentence in advance, knowing nothing about the facts and circumstances of the case, than a judge charged with that responsibility who has heard all of the facts and circumstances of the case. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has recently expressed concerns with the bill which indicate that we should have had a legislative hearing on the bill to hear from stakeholders and those who have concerns about the legislation. Even though I support the intent of the sponsors to do more to address identity theft, for the reasons stated, the 2 and 5 year mandatory minimum sentences make this bill indefensible, and I cannot support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 6029, the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012. This legislation will help to protect the intellectual property and competitive strengths of American businesses by increasing the maximum penalties for engaging in the Federal offense of economic espionage. This crime, which has serious repercussions for the victim companies and our economy, consists of knowingly misappropriating trade secrets with the intent or knowledge that the offense will benefit a foreign government. As reported by the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, economic espionage is a serious threat to American businesses by foreign governments. Economic espionage inflicts a significant cost on victim companies and threatens the economic security of the United States. These companies incur extensive costs resulting from the loss of unique intellectual property, the loss of expenditures related to research and development, and the loss of future revenues and profits. Many companies do not even know when their sensitive data has been stolen, and those that do find out are often reluctant to report the losses, fearing potential damage to their reputations with investors, customers, and employees. Unfortunately, the pace of the economic espionage collection of information and industrial espionage activities against major United States corporations is accelerating. During fiscal year 2011, the Department of Justice and the FBI saw an increase of 29 percent in economic espionage and trade secret theft investigations compared to the prior year. Foreign competitors of United States corporations with ties to companies owned by foreign governments are increasing their efforts to steal trade secret information and intellectual property by infiltrating our computer networks. Evidence suggests that economic espionage and trade secret theft on behalf of companies located in China is an emerging trend. For example, at least 34 companies were reportedly victimized by attacks originating from China in 2010. Over the course of these attacks, computer viruses were spread via emails to corporate employees, allowing the attackers to have access to emails and sensitive documents. In response to these growing threats, the United States Intellectual Property Coordinator, in her 2011 annual report, called upon Congress to increase the penalties for economic espionage, and this bill is consistent with that recommendation. I want to commend Members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this bill, particularly the gentleman from Texas, the Judiciary Committee chairman, Mr. Smith; the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Conyers; my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte); and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1950. Dating back to the mid-19th century, numerous laws have been enacted pertaining to the organization and management of the National Park System by the National Park Service. The Service is also responsible for carrying out the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other laws relating to the protection and preservation of sites that illustrate America's history. Over the ensuing years, laws specifying the Service's responsibilities have been codified in various sections of title 16 of the United States Code. And as laws relating to the National Park Service were amended and new laws were added to the Code, classifications have become more cumbersome to use. H.R. 1950 simply gathers all of these provisions pertaining to the National Park Service and restates them in a new positive law title of the United States Code. The new title 54 of the Code replaces and repeals these provisions of the former law. All changes in existing law made by H.R. 1950 are purely technical, and they reflect the understood policy, intent, and purpose of Congress in the original enactments. These changes include corrections to remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections. We should note that this measure was drafted by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as part of that office's ongoing statutory responsibility to ``prepare a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States.'' I commend the Office of the Law Revision Counsel for its good work on H.R. 1950 and for its many valuable contributions to our legislative process. Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.