Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago we passed ObamaCare, and now the Supreme Court has ruled that it is, in fact, constitutional. Even after this ruling, some are ignoring the fact that these reforms are working. We know that there are children with preexisting conditions who now have insurance. We know that there are young adults who have had car accidents and their families did not have to go bankrupt for health care costs because they were able to stay on their parents' policies. We know that there are seniors who are receiving assistance when they fall in the doughnut hole. We know many people have discovered curable diseases when those diseases were in fact curable because they didn't have to save up for copays and deductibles for their annual checkup. We know that there are people with serious illnesses who no longer fear being kicked off their insurance plans in the middle of treatment when they need the coverage the most. And in 18 months, all Americans will be able to afford a comprehensive health care policy. All of this was done in a fiscally responsible way. And why would anyone want to take away these protections and leave people without health security? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 31st attempt to turn the clock back on the advancements made under the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The contempt citation pending against Attorney General Holder is unfounded, unfair, and unwise. All of this involves questions about gunwalking. And we know that the Attorney General has handed over thousands of documents in response to multiple subpoenas. So we know that the gunwalking policy began under the Bush administration. We know that President Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, was briefed on the policy, and it continued. We know that when Attorney General Holder found out about it, he shut the program down and called for an investigation. If we want to know why the policy started, we should ask officials who served when it started during the Bush administration. If we want to know what Attorney General Holder knew about Fast and Furious, we should call the former Acting Director of the ATF, Ken Melson, who is on the record as saying that he would have been the one to have informed the Attorney General, but even he didn't know about Fast and Furious. But unfortunately, requests from the Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to call these witnesses have been rejected. At this point, there has been no articulation of any useful information about the origins of gunwalking in Fast and Furious or the death of Agent Brian Terry that can be learned from the narrow set of documents still at issue, nor has there been any articulation of any legitimate legislative purpose that can be achieved. And, in fact, Chairman Issa has silenced whistleblowers who testified about legislation to strengthen law enforcement tools on our southwestern boarder. If the Speaker now insists on holding Attorney General Holder in contempt for failing to respond to more subpoenas, the Speaker should articulate with clarity what general purpose will be served by the response. If nothing legitimately useful is to be learned nor any legislative purpose is to be achieved with continued responses to these subpoenas, then it is time for the Attorney General to get back to work, along with the Members of the House.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a storied institution of faith in Virginia's Third Congressional District. This year, Trinity Episcopal Church in Portsmouth, Virginia is celebrating its 250th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed church and its contributions to the greater Hampton Roads community. The story of Trinity Episcopal Church begins in 1752 with William Crawford, the founder of Portsmouth, when he designated space at the intersection of High and Court Streets for a parish church. Between 1761 and 1762, the Vestry of Trinity Church was formed. Reverend Charles Smith served as the first parish priest. During the American Revolution, the church was used by the British garrison, and Trinity's old church bell was cracked celebrating General Cornwallis' surrender. During the War of 1812, Captain Arthur Emmerson III, a lay leader in the congregation, was instrumental in the American victory at the Battle of Craney Island. During the Civil War, the crew of the ironclad C.S.S. Virginia--commonly called the Merrimac-- worshipped at Trinity before boarding the ship to fight in the first battle of the ironclads against the Union ship, U.S.S. Monitor. Over the years, Trinity continued to grow and expand, and its congregation felt a great sense of community responsibility, contributing to the well-being of the City of Portsmouth, surrounding neighborhoods and area churches. In the 1890s, Trinity founded the King's Daughters Hospital, which later became Portsmouth General Hospital. In the 1960s, under its noted Rector, the Rev. C. Charles Vache, the congregation was active in the civil rights movement and endorsed the equality of all persons. Its members support organizations such as Portsmouth Volunteers for the Homeless, Oasis Social Ministry Center, and other social agencies, providing breakfasts, dinners, overnight accommodations, and financial support to those in need. Trinity is best known for its Annual Children's Christmas Shoppe, where hundreds of children, guided by members of the parish and community disguised as ``elves,'' can do their own shopping for loved ones. The Episcopal Church Women and the Brotherhood of Trinity take on additional local, national and even international community service projects of their own. Yet another longstanding Trinity tradition worthy of note is its music. Mentions of organists and accompanying choirs date back to 1823. Instruments housed at Trinity are revered as representative early- American works by their crafters. The choir has received acclaim dating back to the 1860s, when the Rt. Rev. John Johns, Bishop of Virginia, called the Trinity Choir ``the best in the diocese.'' Today, the Trinity Music Series features local musical ensembles and world- renowned artists, working with the Virginia Arts Festival and other community organizations to provide quality music services, recitals and concerts to the public free of charge. As Trinity Episcopal Church 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 Rev. John R. Throop, D. Min., and all of the members of the Trinity Episcopal Church on the occasion of their 250th 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 Mount Zion Baptist Church in Charles County, Virginia on the occasion of its 200th anniversary. I would like to highlight some moments from the history of the church. Mount Zion Baptist Church was first established by slaves in 1812. The original church was built on a parcel of land that was purchased for $20. The church worshipped in this sanctuary until it was destroyed by fire. After the sanctuary's destruction, the church was without a place to worship until a new building was deeded to the Church in 1885 and a sanctuary erected in 1886. Mount Zion continues to worship in this sanctuary to this day. Over the years, the building has undergone many beneficial additions including the construction of a vestibule, choir stand, choir room, annex, Pastor's Study, Secretary's Office, baptismal pool, central heating, and air cooling system as well as new siding, pews, and carpet. Over the past two hundred years, Mount Zion has been fortunate to have many dedicated pastors including Revs. Silas Richardson, J.H. Harrison, William Sayles, E.T. Banks, J.H. Williams, James Lee, W.H. Gaines, Gandhi G. Hester, Daniel L. Adams, Sr., and its current Pastor, George Magazine. The Church has also been fortunate to receive the service of numerous deacons, trustees and other officials over the years. Their leadership helped the church thrive over its 200 year history. Examples of this include the organization of the Tones of Zion Gospel Chorus, the Youth Choir, the Male Chorus, the Nurses' Aides, the Christian Education Department, the Missionary Ministry, and publication of ``The Spirit of Zion'' newsletter, as well as additional Worship Sundays and the Wednesday night Praise and Prayer Service. As Mount Zion Baptist Church gathers to celebrate its 200th anniversary, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on the future with great expectations. I would like to congratulate Pastor Magazine and all of the members of Mount Zion on this monumental occasion.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, we need to work together to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act; but, unfortunately, H.R. 4970 is seriously flawed and should not pass. Among its many flaws, it harms immigrant women and fails to protect the LGBT community. It also creates new mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums have been studied extensively, and they've been found to be ineffective in addressing crime, while at the same time they distort the rational sentencing systems, they discriminate against minorities, and they often violate common sense. Mandatory minimums can be particularly harmful in domestic relations cases, domestic violence cases where the victim and the abuser have a prior relationship, and where the victim of abuse may be less likely to report the abuse knowing that, if convicted, the abuser is certain to go to prison for 5 or 10 years without parole. That's why many organizations dedicated to ending domestic violence and working hard for the reauthorization of VAWA are opposed to the mandatory minimum provisions in the rule. On top of these problems in the reported bill, the Rules Committee adopted a manager's amendment that, among other problems, deletes protections against discrimination in hiring by religious organizations using VAWA funds. Since the 1960s, we have had, as a Federal policy, a prohibition against discrimination based on religion when using Federal funds. The 1964 Civil Rights Act had an exemption for churches and other religious organizations using their own funds to be able to consider religion in hiring. However, the manager's amendment specifically allows those groups to discriminate based on religion with Federal funds. We should not pass a bill that allows a person applying for a job paid for with Federal funds to be discriminated against based on religion. Madam Speaker, we must work hard to reauthorize VAWA; but, unfortunately, H.R. 4970 in its current form is not the version of VAWA we should pass, and the rule does not allow amendments to improve the bill. So I urge defeat of this rule.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the possibility of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction being transported through border tunnels is frightening. The possibility of narcotics or trafficking victims being transported through tunnels is disturbing. And I have real concerns about tunnels being used for run-of-the-mill illegal immigration and to smuggle goods or merchandise. But these things are already illegal. And the penalty for doing any of these things through a tunnel is already double what it would be if the unlawful activity had not made use of a tunnel. When this bill, H.R. 4119, was in the Judiciary Committee, I commented on what I saw as the redundancies in the bill. We already have laws against constructing or financing a tunnel between the United States and another country. The penalty for violating the law is a fine and up to 20 years in prison. And we have laws against knowing, or recklessly disregarding, that land you own or lease is being used by someone else who is building a tunnel, The penalty for that is a fine and up to 10 years in prison. H.R. adds attempts to the crimes already available to address border tunnels. Yet, I wonder how many cases there have been where a prosecutor was unable to prosecute someone for attempting to construct a tunnel under the current border tunnel law but would be able to under H.R. 4119? For U.S. prosecutorial jurisdiction, the tunnel would have to be started on the U.S. side and not yet have crossed the border into Mexico to be an attempted border tunnel, because if it has already crossed the border, it IS a border tunnel, so you don't need an attempt law. But even before such an attempt is started, and certainly after it is started, it is already a conspiracy to build a border tunnel, which is already covered by current law. We have had no hearings in the House on these issues, so it is not clear what information we are operating on in developing this bill. The Department of Homeland Security reports that 154 border tunnels or attempted border tunnels have been found since 1990. Laura Duffy, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, stated in testimony before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control on June 15, 2011, that all of the tunnels discovered thus far were started in Mexico. So if it takes crossing the border to be a border tunnel, and all of them are started in Mexico, the ``attempt'' provision of H.R. 4119 does not seem like a very useful tool in addressing border tunnels. Conspiracy laws, which already exist, would seem to be of better use. And if existing conspiracy charges are not enough of a prosecutorial incentive, it would seem you would want to wait until the tunnel is actually being used so you can really rack up the penalties for drugs, goods or people smuggling which allows a doubling of penalties. Duffy also stated in her testimony that in prosecuting tunnel-related crimes, the Department of Justice uses the range of drug charges under Title 21 because the drug charges carry ``stiff mandatory minimum sentences and sometimes enable prosecutors to use `career offender' sentencing enhancements.'' When you start doubling such drug penalties under the provisions of the current border tunnel law, you can easily get into sentences of many decades. In addition to adding attempt and increasing the penalty for conspiracy, H.R. 4119 adds provisions for wire tap, forfeiture, and money laundering, which should always be done carefully, in my view. These are extraordinary government powers that were created and authorized to be used in extraordinary cases and circumstances, not to address ordinary crime. We have come to routinely add these authorities to deal with the crime du jour, further cluttering up an already bloated federal code with multiple, superfluous ways to charge every crime. There are no U.S. restrictions on the use of wiretaps outside the U.S. Since the tunnels are seemingly always started in Mexico, it is not clear what wiretap authorizations add to the investigative process. We should not be decorating the criminal code with more and more pages. We ought to be simplifying the code. While I do think border tunnels are a serious problem, I believe we already have adequate laws with very harsh penalties to deal with the problem.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, there is a difference in indigent legal representation in criminal cases and civil cases. The criminal defense, it's required by the Constitution that you have to provide that, and whatever it costs, the defendant is entitled to representation. In civil court, you don't have that technical requirement. But some of the cases where people need but cannot afford attorneys deal with some of the most important parts of our life: housing, family law, divorce, child custody, consumer rip-offs, health care, things where you actually need representation that legal aid provides. Legal aid programs cannot meet the needs of their demands right now. Most legal aid programs, as the gentleman from Virginia said, turn down a lot more than they can take. And because of the recession, the demand is much higher than it has been in the past. When you talk about rights, rights without remedies are no rights at all. When rights in our democracy depend on the generosity of a few pro bono attorneys, we're actually violating our democratic values. As my colleague again mentioned, traditional Federal funding is down and another traditional funding for legal aid services--Interest on Lawyers Trust Account--is also way down because interest rates are at historic lows. Mr. Chairman, we should support our democratic principles and support legal aid services and oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the suggestion has been made that we depend on volunteer attorneys. We don't ask for physicians to volunteer. We don't depend on volunteer homebuilders or grocers or police officers or teachers. We shouldn't depend on essential services by asking only volunteers to meet the need. There are volunteer attorneys who volunteer a lot of time. But in terms of essential services, we shouldn't have a system where we depend on those volunteers. I would hope we would defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis amendment. The United States locks up a higher portion of its population than any country on Earth. And one of the contributing factors is the high rate of recidivism--people who get out of prison and then turn around, mess up, and return to prison. Before the Second Chance Act of 2008, the Department of Justice's statistics reflected that about two-thirds of the offenders released from prison--two-thirds--were re-arrested within 2 years. Now that's down in some States to one-half. In my home State of Virginia, which has taken full advantage of the Second Chance Act and has enacted additional initiatives, the rate is down in the 30 percent range. So additional funding of this amendment will be very useful, and it shows that you can save money and reduce crime. Now we need a lot more money than even this amendment would provide. Each year, 9 million individuals are released from jails, over 720,000 are released from State and Federal prisons, and they need a lot more assistance than even this amendment would do. But this amendment is a major step in the right direction. At least 95 percent of State prisoners will be released at some point, and they have a myriad of needs which, if unmet, will contribute to the risk of re-incarceration. There are significant mental health problems that the Second Chance Act can address. Substance abuse is highly correlated with crime. Education--those who do not have adequate education will find themselves back in prison. And employment--those who, basically because they don't have an education, have trouble getting jobs, and having a felony record even exacerbates that problem. The Second Chance Act initiatives go a long way in helping. Basic secondary education, vocational training, and intense supervision all contribute to reductions in recidivism. So, Madam Chair, if we are to lower crime rates, you can't think of a better investment than this amendment that we're considering today. We can save money and reduce crime and reduce victims. Please support the Davis amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that the gentleman from Utah has suggested the need to reduce the deficit. The Congressional Black Caucus budget beats the Republican budget by $770 billion. Then he talks about tax increases, but doesn't mention the fine print in the Republican budget that instructs the Ways and Means Committee to find $4 trillion in tax increases. So, if fiscal responsibility is the idea, the budget of the Congressional Black Caucus beats the Republican budget by $770 billion over 10 years.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is a more credible and responsible alternative than the underlying Republican budget. The CBC budget is a plan that significantly reduces our deficit over the next decade while increasing economic opportunities and promoting job creation in every corner of our society. Deficit reduction is about making tough choices, but the path to fiscal responsibility must not be on the backs of our Nation's most vulnerable communities. Our budget makes those tough choices, but it doesn't jeopardize Social Security, turn Medicaid into a block grant, or dismantle the Medicare guarantee. The fundamental choice we have to make is a choice between millionaires and Medicare. The CBC budget extends the Bush-era tax cuts only for hardworking middle class American families but pays for this extension through tax reform by closing corporate loopholes and giveaways, deterring aggressive speculation in the stock market--the speculation that helped create the 2008 fiscal crisis and the recent gas price increase--and we ensure that millionaires who benefited most from income growth, tax cuts, and bailouts in the last decade contribute their fair share. With additional revenue, the CBC budget restores funding for important programs cut in the Budget Control Act of 2011, we cancel the sequester for security and nonsecurity programs, and we match the Democratic alternative on defense spending. Our budget also makes targeted investments that will create jobs in the short term by funding transportation and infrastructure projects, and our budget will ensure our long-term prosperity by investing in education and job training initiatives, including an increase in the maximum Pell Grant by nearly $1,000, to $6,500. The CBC budget will positively impact every sector of our economy, cement the foundation of a strong economic recovery, and reduce the deficit by $770 billion more over the next decade than the Republican budget, as this chart shows. The CBC budget outlines specific recommendations to achieve this goal. The Republican budget, on the other hand, simply instructs the Ways and Means Committee to find $4 trillion in new revenues and then instructs the Appropriations Committee to find spending cuts in the range of almost a trillion dollars. In light of the fact that the supercommittee failed to find $1.2 trillion, it is unlikely that anybody will figure out how to fill this $5 trillion hole in the Republican budget. But even if they do, the CBC budget still has $770 billion more in deficit reduction than the Republican budget. Mr. Chairman, there is a clear difference between the Republican budget and the CBC budget, and that difference is the CBC budget chooses Medicare over millionaires. I urge my colleagues to support the Cleaver amendment to ensure a fairer and more prosperous future for America.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have difficult choices to make when it comes to addressing our budget deficit, but the Republican budget makes the wrong choices by deeply cutting vital programs like Medicare, Medicaid, education, job training, and transportation to pay for massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. Our Nation's communities of color have been hardest hit by the effects of the Great Recession, and the Republican budget does little to address the priorities of these communities. Even as our Nation's economy has created nearly 3.9 million private sector jobs since February 2010, communities of color still are experiencing disproportionately higher rates of unemployment, home foreclosure, educational disadvantages, and economic hardship. As a result, vulnerable communities are increasingly relying on public programs to meet their basic needs. With the passage of the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution, then the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act, these same vital programs have been slashed and targeted with even deeper cuts in the House Republican budget even as tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are extended without problems. The Congressional Black Caucus has a long history of submitting fiscally sound and morally responsible alternatives to budgets proposed by both Democrat and Republican Presidents. The CBC alternative budget for fiscal year 2013 continues that long tradition, putting forth a plan that reduces the deficit over the next decade. It alleviates some of the harm inflicted by the Budget Control Act, and increases economic opportunities and job creation by ensuring sustained investments in education, job training, transportation, infrastructure, and advanced research and development. The Congressional Black Caucus budget proposes significant increases in these functions of the budget for fiscal year 2013 to further accelerate our economic recovery and ensure a recovery is felt in every corner of our Nation. At the same time, the CBC budget protects and enhances the social safety net that saved millions of families from poverty during the Great Recession. Unlike the proposed Republican budget, the CBC budget does not significantly reduce Medicaid or cut food assistance or force seniors to contribute more of their hard-earned money towards their health care expenses by dismantling Medicare and other vital support services. The CBC budget achieves all of this by making tough but responsible decisions to pay for tax cut extensions by making our tax system fairer, closing corporate loopholes and preferences that have contributed to the loss of American jobs. Deficit reduction and the path of fiscal responsibility must not be on the backs of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. We cannot win the future by leaving our most vulnerable behind. Our success as a Nation is interwoven in the success of every community, and this goal is reflected in the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget for fiscal year 2013. Now let me go through some of the details of the budget, because many of the budgets that have been presented in the past have missing numbers or unspecified cuts or things that you know aren't going to happen. These are our recommendations for a budget and where we are on the bottom line. The CBC budget assumes as its baseline all of the President's spending and revenue assumptions. The CBC budget then not only extends certain tax cuts but also pays for all of the tax cuts for hardworking, middle-class Americans, and then it enacts tax reform measures to pay for the extension, raising nearly $4 trillion in new revenue over the next decade. We do that by: Reining in Wall Street speculation with a financial speculation tax that will raise approximately $840.9 billion over 10 years; Ensuring Wall Street bankers pay the same tax rates as working Americans by taxing carried interest, dividends, and capital gains as ordinary income, which will raise almost $1 trillion over 10 years; Enacting the Buffett Rule and adding a millionaire surcharge similar to the legislation that was in the House version of the Affordable Care Act. That will raise approximately $600 billion over 10 years; Closing certain tax loopholes and preferences. There are so many of them that, by closing those loopholes and deductions, we can raise $1.3 trillion over 10 years; and Ending the mortgage interest deduction for vacation homes and yachts, which will add a few billion dollars over 10 years. The bill also protects Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, welfare under TANF, unemployment insurance, and other vital safety net programs that are hit hard by the Republican budget. We restore important funding for programs that were cut under the Budget Control Act, cancel the sequester for security and nonsecurity programs, match the Democratic alternative budget on defense, and invest another $153 billion over the next decade in vital programs that will accelerate our economy and support hardworking American families. We do that by increasing the maximum Pell Grant by $1,000, to a total of $6,500. We invest an additional $25 billion above the President's budget in education and job training in 2013 alone. We also continue unemployment benefits and provide benefits for those who, through no fault of their own, have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks. We invest an additional $50 billion in job creating transportation and infrastructure programs in 2013, alone, and $155 billion above the President's budget over the next decade. We match the independent budget for Veterans Affairs, as recommended by a coalition of veterans' groups. We invest $12 billion more in advanced research and development programs like NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation, which will create jobs now and in the future. We have additional funding for housing, foreclosure assistance, and other important programs and community development. We provide an additional $10 billion in vital health care programs, such as community health centers. And we create a public health insurance option under the Affordable Care Act, giving American people a real choice when the exchanges come into effect by allowing them to pick, as one of their choices, a public option. Adopting a public option has been scored as a $100 billion savings over 10 years because those programs will cost less. When the dust settles, the CBC budget will reduce the deficit by an additional $769 billion as compared to the Republican budget over the next decade. Let me say that again. We will reduce the deficit by an additional $769 billion compared to the Republican budget over the next decade. It is more fiscally responsible. It addresses the needs of our public, and, therefore, I would hope that we would adopt the Congressional Black Caucus budget and not the Republican budget that will be presented on the floor. And I yield back to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for her very strong statement. Mr. Speaker, we have tough choices to make; and when we start the discussion with how much people will get in tax cuts, you know the rest of the discussion will not be serious. We have decided if you're going to have tax cuts, if you're going to extend them, they have to be paid for. That is the historic contrast between the CBC budget and the Republican budget. Now, Mr. Speaker, when people say we have to cut Medicare, they should look at the Republican budget because the only reason you have to cut Medicare is to fund the tax cuts. If you do not extend the tax cuts, you don't have to cut Medicare. When the same budget includes massive tax cuts and cuts in Medicare, people ought to notice that if you don't have the tax cuts, you don't have to cut Medicare. Now, the Republican budget has virtually dismantled Medicare. It provides a voucher, but I think they like to call it--what?--a premium support something or other. Basically, you dismantle your right to Medicare, and you get some money to go see if you can buy some insurance in the private market. It turns out that the amount of money you're given--I'll call it a voucher--will be about $6,000 short of what you need to get the equivalent of Medicare coverage. That's where the savings is. You don't reduce the cost of health care; you just shift it over to the seniors. Now, one of the ways they try to convince people to go along with it is they tell people who are paying attention, those over 55, they say, well, it's not going to apply to you. We will continue to plan for about 10 years, and then we'll inflict this scheme on everybody else. Some people over 55 say, well, that's good, I don't have to worry about it. Well, actually, people over 55 do have to worry about it because the people making the promise that you will be able to have a Cadillac Medicare program when people coming behind have a little motor scooter for their health care, and you think people are going to pay taxes, when they're going to get a motor scooter, for your Cadillac plan--I think the idea that they're going to continue paying those taxes are remote. You have to notice that 10 years from now, when the decision gets made to start to inflict this scheme on the younger people, the people who will be keeping the promise for those over 55 aren't the ones that made the promise. They will be new representatives who don't have any commitment to keeping that promise. In fact, election after election, some of the younger people may ask, well, are you going to continue taxing me to support a Medicare program when all I'm going to get is a voucher? I want to know which one of the candidates will either cancel the Medicare for everybody and have everybody get this little voucher thing, or continue the Medicare program for everybody. I want to know if anybody up there is going to tax me for a Medicare program that I'm not going to get. And after five election cycles, the people that survive that will be the ones dealing with the promise that others made. I doubt if any of them will be able to sustain that kind of pressure. When the time comes, either everybody will get this little voucher thing or everybody will get a Medicare card. The idea that some will get a nice, big Medicare package and everybody else coming behind get a little piece of voucher and think that's going to be sustained for any length of time, I think they've got another thought coming. So people ought to recognize that even those over 55 have to protect Medicare. And the reason it's being cut is so that millionaires can get their tax cuts. You let those millionaires' tax cuts expire, you don't have to cut Medicare. Now, as the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands said, we have a responsible budget. We name the cuts that are made. We name the taxes that will be affected. And you can see exactly what we're doing. Unfortunately, in the Republican budget, you get these unspecified cuts, 19 percent on average. Well, you know it's not going to be on average. It's not going to be across the board because some programs won't be cut. You're not going to cut the FBI by 19 percent. You're not going to cut Federal prisons by 19 percent. So all those that you don't cut you end up having to double up to meet your number, you've got to double up on the next one. So we have no idea what's going to happen, other than all of these kind of unspecified cuts. And hopefully everybody's thinking, well, that's not going to be my program, that's not the one I depend on, when in fact it might not only be 19 percent, it might be 20, 30, 40 percent cuts in those programs. The fact is that the Congressional Black Caucus budget is a responsible budget, and it comes in almost $800 billion better on the bottom line than the Republican budget that will be the alternative. We have shown that you can be responsible, you can be compassionate, and you can be fiscally responsible. That's the Congressional Black Caucus budget.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise, on behalf of Congressman Scott Rigell and myself, to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Hampton High School Crabbers basketball team had a remarkable season. On March 11, Coach Walter Brower and the Crabbers won their first Virginia state basketball championship since 1997, their fifth overall, by defeating Petersburg High School of Petersburg, 64 51, at the VCU Siegel Center in Richmond, Virginia. After not making it to last year's Eastern Region Tournament, the Crabbers came into this season as unlikely to win the state championship. However, as a result of tireless work on the part of both Hampton's players and coaches, the team was able to rise to a level that, given their performance last year, few would have thought achievable. After three straight close games to begin the Virginia High School League tournament, including a near loss to the Bayside Marlins from Virginia Beach, the Crabbers never trailed their opponents in their final two games. Although very accomplished in basketball, Hampton High's legacy of excellence is not limited to the field of athletics. Under the direction of Principal Myra Chambers, the Hampton faculty seeks to inspire all students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities and in their communities. As a direct descendent of the Syms-Eaton School, the first free school in America established in the American colonies, Hampton High has continued to uphold a tradition rooted in excellent public education. Affectionately known as the ``little Pentagon,'' Hampton has been selected in the past as one of the best schools in the United States when it received the national Award of Academic Excellence from the Department of Education. Hampton's commendation for this award read in part: Hampton High has seen ``the glory of a maturing nation and the pain of depression and warfare. Yet through it all, the school has always respected and upheld the traditional values of educational achievement and pride in one's community. . . .'' So, on this occasion, we would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Walter Brower, his coaching staff, the players on the Hampton High School Crabbers and to all Hampton High School students, families, friends and fans, for their continued dedication to excellence in winning the Group AAA Virginia High School League state basketball championship of 2012.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5. There are several troublesome provisions with the bill. For example, it sets an arbitrary and discriminatory $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages; it reduces the amount of time an injured patient has to file a lawsuit; and it also repeals IPAB, the board created by the Affordable Care Act to control Medicare costs while preserving access to care. Although there are many troublesome provisions in the bill, I'd like to speak at length about one provision, the so-called fair share provision. The fair share provision would repeal the general rule of joint and several liability. Joint and several liability is a common law principle that enables an injured patient to seek compensation from any or all of the parties responsible for the patient's injuries. Joint and several liability provides that each of the guilty defendants are jointly responsible and individually responsible for the total damages, and, if they want, they can agree in advance on how to apportion fault among themselves; thus they can purchase and share the cost of insurance and charge their fees for services based on that agreement. The general rule of joint and several liability does not burden the injured patient with the requirement of assigning proportional fault. This PATH Act creates a bizarre and impossible standard for the patient by eliminating joint and several liability. It requires that the plaintiff, who is the patient, demonstrate each negligent party's proportional responsibility. This is often impossible for the plaintiff because frequently all the patient knows is he woke up as the victim of malpractice. Why should he then be required to find out what each and everybody did? And how does he do that when everybody is denying any liability? Unfortunately, this bill essentially requires the plaintiff to conduct a separate case against each defendant, each case requiring a finding of duty of care, a breach of that duty, a proximate cause, a finding of damages, and then a determination of what part of the damages are attributable to what malpractice. Each of those cases requires an expensive expert witness, depositions, and the full expense of complicated litigation. It also complicates any settlement that might take place because a patient can't take a chance of settling with one defendant without knowing what, ultimately, the other defendants might have to pay. What's most disturbing about this bill is it eliminates joint and several liability for all kinds of damages, including economic damages. In doing so, H.R. 5 is more extreme than most States' laws. Economic loss compensates injured parties for their out-of-pocket expenses, such as the hospital bills, the doctor bills, and lost wages. Even though the proponents of H.R. 5 claim to use California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act as a model, not even California eliminates joint and several liability for economic damages. Mr. Chairman, over centuries, each State has balanced judicial procedures between defendants and plaintiffs. Some provide longer and some shorter statutes of limitations. Some have large, some have small, and some have no caps at all on damages. Some deny recovery in cases of contributory negligence. Others allow recovery based on comparative negligence. Most have joint and several liability--a few do not--but the interests of plaintiffs and defendants have been balanced over the years in each State. We should not override centuries of the State- level balancing of these interests by preempting some parts of tort law with this Federal bill. Mr. Chairman, we usually hear that tort reform is necessary to address three problems: defensive medicine, high malpractice premiums, and frivolous lawsuits. This bill will not prevent, will not do anything to deal with defensive medicine, because the lawsuits are not eliminated. There will still be defensive medicine, and because it increases expenses for defendants, it may actually increase total malpractice premiums. Finally, the bill does not target frivolous lawsuits. The Institute of Medicine estimates that approximately up to 100,000 patients die every year due to medical mistakes, and yet there are only about 15,000 medical malpractice payments each year, so there's a question of whether or not frivolous lawsuits are even a problem. But to the extent that it is a problem, this bill will not target frivolous lawsuits; it will increase the cost of litigation and may reduce all lawsuits, but it will not target frivolous lawsuits. So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we will not pass a Federal law to abolish joint and several liability at the State level, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the bill we're considering today, the STOCK Act, would prohibit Members of Congress and other legislative branch employees, as well as executive and judicial branch employees, from using nonpublic information for personal benefit derived from an individual's position or gained from the performance of an individual's duties. Today, we are amending the Senate-passed bill, S. 2038, with a substitute that makes some changes to the Senate text, such as regrettably eliminating the requirement that certain political intelligence activities be disclosed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. These intelligence firms obtain inside information from Members of Congress and their staffs, and then they sell that information to investment firms. The public should be informed of these types of contacts. With this bill, our goal is to hold Members of Congress, as well as other government officials, to the same standard as those in corporations who have the duty not to trade on information that is not available to the general public. Most Members of Congress believed that this type of activity was wrong whether explicitly prohibited by criminal law or at least subject to Ethics Committee sanctions. Most of us assumed that a Food and Drug Administration official could not call a stockbroker shortly before a blockbuster drug were to be approved and profit off of that insider knowledge. We just assumed that that was wrong. So this bill codifies what most of us thought was already in the law. This is not a complicated issue. This is the same standard that applies to those in the corporate context. It is wrong to trade on nonpublic information for our benefit and to the detriment of the public. The public has the right to expect that the public interest comes first, and people should not have to worry about what may be motivating our actions as we make decisions that impact them. I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), for their leadership in drafting and introducing the House version of the STOCK Act. This legislation represents an appropriate acknowledgment of what most of us thought was already the law, that national government officials of all branches should not benefit financially from nonpublic information they learned by virtue of their positions, and so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducting a bill to consolidate programs at the Department of Justice in order to create an offset for the costs in another bill I previously introduced this Congress, the Center to Advance, Monitor and Preserve University Security, ``CAMPUS,'' Safety Act. This consolidation bill is intended to allay the concerns some of my colleagues have expressed about the lack of an offset in the CAMPUS Safety Act. This bill will offset a majority of the costs of the the CAMPUS Safety Act, using the same offsets used in the Senate companion to the CAMPUS Safety Act, S. 1749, as introduced by Senator Mark Warner. When the CAMPUS Safety Act is considered, we will merge the two bills together for consideration. In order to alleviate a majority of the costs of the CAMPUS Safety Act, this bill requires that the Office of Dispute Resolution of the Department of Justice and the jurisdiction and employees of that office be transferred to the Office of Legal Policy at the Department and funded through the general administration appropriation of the Office of Legal Policy. This was proposed in the President's 2012 budget and also by Senator Coburn in his ``Back in Black'' report. This bill also requires the Attorney General to implement policies that will result in at least $1 million in savings through consolidating ineffective or duplicative programs. This bill is important because it helps to pay for the CAMPUS Safety Act, which is vitally important to our Nation's institutions of higher education. The CAMPUS Safety Act will create a National Center of Campus Public Safety, ``Center,'' which will be administered through the Department of Justice. The Center will train campus public safety agencies, encourage research to strengthen college safety and security, and serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of relevant campus public safety information. By having this information in one central location, institutions of higher education will be able to easily obtain the best information available on ways to keep campuses safe and secure and how to respond in the event of a campus emergency. This bill was introduced in the House in the 110th and 111th Congresses and passed both times by voice vote. As Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and a Member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I strongly urge my colleagues to sign on to the CAMPUS Safety Act to help schools keep their campuses safe and free from violence.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for the opportunity to speak. And today I rise in opposition to an unfortunate trend that seems to be creeping up all over the country, laws that add unnecessary complications to the process of voter registration and the process of voting. Now, some of these initiatives include photo ID laws, reduction in time to vote or to register to vote, laws complicating the rules for running voter registration drives. Now, none of these little schemes prevent individuals from voting, but the unnecessary complications guarantee that many will not get their paperwork in on time and, as a consequence, many will not be able to vote. In some States, those few votes can make the difference in a presidential election. Now, we need to protect the right to vote, not add unnecessary complications that will result in fewer people voting. But we see all over the country efforts to reduce the Election Day registration. In those States that have allowed it for decades, those who could have registered on Election Day will find that they cannot vote. In States that allow early voting, we're seeing efforts to reduce the number of days of early voting, meaning that some people may not be able to get their votes in as they could have with the longer period. In some States the rules for voter registration drives are becoming more onerous, so much so that groups that have traditionally conducted voter registration drives, such as the League of Women Voters, are having second thoughts about conducting those drives under the new rules, and that will mean fewer people will be registered to vote. And many States are imposing for the first time a requirement that voters display a specific voter ID. This scheme that is so slanted that, as has been previously stated, some government-issued IDs are acceptable and some are not. Texas proposed to accept the concealed weapons permit as acceptable government-issued ID, but not student IDs from a State college. Now, Mr. Speaker, these voter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem. There is no credible evidence that in-person voter fraud, which is the only kind of fraud that the photo ID would prevent, is any problem around the country. In fact, multiple studies have found that virtually no cases of in-person voter fraud can be found. And the requirement of voter ID in subjecting people to that time and expense will guarantee that many will not get their paperwork in on time. There are complications that can occur when you're trying to get that paperwork done. Some of the elderly have never gotten a photo ID and wouldn't know where to start. Many who are adopted may not know where to find a birth certificate. Many counties-- for the elderly people, some counties have lost their records and the records aren't available. And it produces bizarre results, such as the nuns who were prohibited from voting because they didn't have photo ID, even though the election officials knew them personally. In Virginia, we have an exception to the photo ID. You have to present a photo ID, but if you don't have one, you can sign an affidavit under pains of a felony and go ahead and vote right now. But unfortunately, even in Virginia they're trying to eliminate that exception and require people to go through the time and expense of getting photo ID if they don't have one. Now, if we're going to look for problems in the voting process maybe we ought to look at Iowa that just certified, had announced that one person had won the Republican Caucuses one day and a couple of days later certified results that another one had won. And there are public reports that suggest that really nobody knows who won. I mean, if you want to look for some voter irregularities, maybe we ought to look at that. Or maybe we ought to look at the candidate who tried to become a candidate on the Virginia Republican Presidential Primary this year. He has publicly stated that petition signatures submitted on behalf of his campaign, of those signatures, hundreds were, in fact, bogus. And if they had not been caught, he would have qualified for the ballot. But fortunately, it has been ascertained that so many were bogus signatures that he, in fact, did not qualify for the Virginia ballot. But as we see all over the country, efforts to reduce Election Day registration and other forms of ease in voting are making it possible for many people to lose those rights. While the situations like Iowa and in Virginia, where it's clear that those situations need scrutiny, there is no evidence that in-person voter fraud is a problem anywhere in the United States. Voting is not an arbitrary, inconsequential act. The cumulative effect of individuals voting elects our government officials who directly create our laws and policies. It is important that we ensure that every eligible voter is given the opportunity to vote, free from unnecessary barriers and schemes. Those schemes that erect barriers to the right to vote are unfair in our democracy. And I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for giving us the opportunity to make these statements.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that we're choosing between 1 year and 2 months. The fact is that by rejecting the Senate bill, which would have created certainty for 2 months, we are instead replacing that with uncertainty that begins in 2 weeks. Going the direction we're going in, in 2 weeks we won't know what the situation will be for payrolls that start on the 1st of January. A full-year consideration is not going to be achieved in the next 2 weeks. The doc fix we've been working on for years; unemployment compensation and tax policy we've been working on for a long time. The idea that we're going to appoint a conference committee and they're going to meet and agree and figure all of this stuff out in a couple of days, we tried that with the supercommittee. It didn't work. This little conference committee is not going to solve all of these problems in the next 10 days. So we have a choice: 2 months of certainty or a few days of total uncertainty. Who knows what's going to happen. Economists have said if we don't extend the payroll tax and unemployment compensation that it will have significant adverse effects on the economy. So we should do this. We should do it for 2 months and work on it for 2 months, and hopefully we'll have a solution at the end of 2 months. We certainly won't have a solution at the end of 2 weeks. So that's the choice. When people talk about certainty, this is a group that talked about certainty and then changed the regulations on light bulbs that have been in effect for 4 years on a 2-week notice. Here we are with certainty for 2 months, and they say, well, uncertainty is a problem, so let's do it in 2 weeks. Let's have some certainty, 2 months of certainty. Let's work on it, and we can get a full-year solution. We're not going to do that the way we're headed. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would adopt the Senate amendments, leave town, send the bill to the President and be finished with it rather than invite all of this uncertainty which is certainly going to befall us if we don't do that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from South Carolina has indicated, we can have 2 months of certainty if we follow our lead. The Republicans have said that we'll get 1 year of extension if we follow their lead. By tomorrow afternoon, we'll see who's telling the truth.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise, on behalf of Congressman Rob Wittman, Congressman Scott Rigell, and myself, to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia, who have, for the fourth year in a row, distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Phoebus High School Phantoms football team had a remarkable season. On December 10, Coach Stan Sexton and the Phantoms won their fourth consecutive Virginia state football championship, defeating South County High School of Lorton 20-10 at Scott Stadium in Charlottesville, Virginia. After overcoming injuries to finish 8-2, Phoebus High entered the postseason tournament as the number three seed. Led by Coach Stan Sexton, after a series of close games, including a come from behind fourth quarter win in the regional semifinals, and a 27-26 win in the state semifinals, Phoebus High entered the state championship game. To cap what Coach Sexton could only call ``an unusual season,'' Phoebus High turned to their defense to bring home a championship. The Phantoms forced five turnovers over the course of the game on their way to a 20-10 win, and another state championship. The Phantom's excellence in football is characteristic of the quality of athletics on the Lower Peninsula area of Virginia. Phoebus High School's championship this year marked the 13th time in the last fifteen years that a Peninsula District team has won a state title in football. Although very accomplished in football, Phoebus High's legacy of excellence is not limited to the field of athletics. Under the Direction of Principal Robert Johnson, the Phoebus faculty seeks to inspire all students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities and in their communities. Phoebus has two innovative programs aimed at expanding the learning experience outside of the traditional classroom. One of them involves courses that prepare students for careers in technology. As host of the Hampton School Division's Information Design and Engineering Academy (IDEA), Phoebus offers magnet career classes in pre-engineering, design and information technology, and media technology and design. These courses provide the students a foundation to prepare for college classes and jobs in the technology sector. Phoebus is also home to the Blue Phantom Inn, a student-run restaurant that gives students an opportunity to develop their culinary arts skills. The restaurant program was nationally recognized in Southern Living magazine. So we would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Stan Sexton, his coaching staff, the players on the Phoebus High School Phantoms and to all of Phoebus High School students, families, friends and fans, for their continued dedication to excellence in winning the Group AAA Division 5 Virginia High School League state football champions of 2011.