Bobby Scott

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3353) to provide for American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas to be treated as States for certain criminal justice programs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 3998, the Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2010, will extend the national child safety pilot program for an additional 12 months. Many Americans across the country graciously give their time and energy to volunteer and mentor children. While most of these volunteers act with good intentions, it is important that we are able to identify those who may misuse these opportunities to harm children. The national child safety pilot program was passed in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act. This program assists organizations in checking the criminal records of volunteers before placing them as mentors with children. Since 2003, the national child safety pilot project has enabled State governments to work with youth-serving organizations to access FBI's national fingerprint-based background checks system. The pilot program has helped prevent child predators and sex offenders from getting access to children through legitimate mentoring programs by providing access to the more comprehensive data in the FBI's database. We have authorized this noncontroversial fee-based program on three other occasions in anticipation of creating a permanent program. This pilot program has provided extremely important information to mentoring organizations--at no cost to taxpayers. We hope that this 12-month extension will give us more time to work with the Senate and the Department of Justice to permanently authorize this program. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership in this legislation and his commitment to keeping children safe. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1540 supports the goal of eliminating illegal marijuana cultivation on Federal lands, and calls on the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop a coordinated strategy to defeat Mexican drug trafficking organizations and other criminal groups. Marijuana growers have begun to use public lands because of their remoteness and difficulty in seizing or tracing the drugs to any specific owner. These large-scale plantations are being operated by well-armed and well-financed Mexican drug trafficking organizations and other criminal groups. Law enforcement officials report that the criminal groups that grow marijuana on Federal forest lands will shoot at police or at any other unwelcome visitors in order to protect their crops. The National Drug Intelligence Center in the Department of Justice issued a national drug threat assessment in February in which it reported that the number of marijuana plants removed from public lands had increased by more than 300 percent from just 2004 to 2008. This increase was spurred primarily by marijuana crops overseen by Mexican drug cartels. In 2008, a separate National Drug Intelligence Center report on cartel-related drug trafficking organizations found that the federation and other undetermined cartels were active in Oregon. In addition, a recent Drug Enforcement Agency investigation uncovered evidence of growers cultivating marijuana on public lands in Oregon and California. The goal of this resolution is to bring attention to this illicit cartel activity and to encourage officials to develop an interagency strategy to stop drug cartels from using Federal lands for large-scale illegal drug crop operations. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1540) supporting the goal of eradicating illicit marijuana cultivation on Federal lands and calling on the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop a coordinated strategy to permanently dismantle Mexican drug trafficking organizations operating on Federal lands, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I served on the special subcommittee appointed to investigate this matter, and dissented from the subcommittee report. I rise to oppose the pending motion to adopt the resolution. I believe that, under precedents of the House, imposing censure on one of our Members for violating procedural rules of the House under these circumstances would be singularly harsh, unfair, and without precedent. Now, Mr. Rangel has acknowledged his mistakes, and he has asked to be punished fairly, which means punished just like everybody else similarly situated. Accordingly, I believe the punishment is appropriate, but I believe that censure is inappropriate. Congressman Charles B. Rangel is a dedicated public servant and a decorated soldier who has made outstanding contributions to the people of his congressional district, to the United States, and to this institution. Yet he has made mistakes which have resulted in violations of the rules of official conduct for Members of the House and he will be punished for those violations. The question is what is the appropriate punishment? We need not answer this question in a vacuum. Congressman Rangel is not the first Member to violate rules of official conduct, so we have ample precedents from which to glean the appropriate punishment. It is clear from the precedents of the House that censure is not a fair and just punishment for these violations. When censure or even reprimand has been imposed for violations in past cases, they have involved direct financial gain or criminal or corrupt conduct. The committee counsel during the hearings acknowledged that those elements are not found in this case. Furthermore, the committee report in this matter acknowledges that the recommendation of censure in this case is in violation of prior case precedents. The point is made in the report on page 7, and I quote: ``Although prior committee precedent for recommendation of censure involved many cases of direct financial gain, this committee's recommendation for censure is based on the cumulative nature of the violations and not direct personal gain.'' But using ``cumulative nature of the violations'' to support the committee's recommendation of censure is without precedent. In the case of former Congressman George Hansen, the committee stated that, and I quote, ``It has been the character of the offenses which established the level of punishment imposed, not the cumulative nature of the offenses.'' And so a review of prior precedents establish that neither the character nor the cumulative nature of the violations warrant censure. Eight of the 11 counts that the committee found that Congressman Rangel has violated are for raising money for a center at a public university in his congressional district. The program is to train young people to go into public service, using his life experience as an inspiration. Assisting a constituent institution with such a project is not a violation in and of itself, but there are proper procedures to be followed if you're going to raise money for a local college. He openly assisted the institution, clearly with no intent to do anything improper, but he did unfortunately violate the rules by not following proper procedures. Once the determination was made that he used official resources to help the local college, that one mistake has been converted into almost eight different counts: One, he used the letterhead; two, he used the staff; three, he used office equipment; he used franked mail; all from the fact that he cannot use official resources. That was a mistake for which he should be punished. The question is what should the punishment be for messing up and raising money improperly? Well, we have the case of former Speaker Newt Gingrich who was found to have violated House rules by misusing tax-exempt entities to fund a partisan college course aimed at recruiting new members to the Republican Party after he had been warned not to. Moreover, he was found to have filed four false reports to the committee about the matter in 13 instances, causing substantial delays and expense to the committee. Yet he was reprimanded, not censured, and did not lose his job as Speaker. Congressman Rangel did not lie about his activities, he gained no partisan advantage, he believed that he was doing right although he made mistakes, and he received no prior warning, as did Speaker Gingrich. Yet Congressman Rangel lost his chairmanship on Ways and Means and now faces the possibility of a censure, not a reprimand, as Speaker Gingrich received. Another example of raising money in violation of House rules involved former House majority leader Tom DeLay. He was admonished by the committee for participating in and facilitating an energy company fund- raiser which the committee found created an appearance of ``impermissible special treatment or access.'' Mr. DeLay was also cited for his ``intervention in a partisan conflict in the Texas House of Representatives using the resources of a Federal agency, the FAA.'' An ethics investigation involved accusations of solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, use of corporate political contributions in violation of State law, and improper use of official resources for political purposes. I think everybody here is aware of recent news reports that Mr. DeLay has been convicted of charges of money laundering in connection with circumventing a State law against corporate contributions to political campaigns. For being found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy, the media reports that he faces possible prison sentences of between 5 and 99 years in prison. Yet the House did not censure Mr. DeLay, nor did they even impose a reprimand. They only issued a committee letter. Mr. Rangel has made mistakes and he should be punished, just like everyone else in the past, consistent with precedents. On the issue of Mr. Rangel's rent-stabilized apartment for use as a campaign office, let the record reflect that Mr. Rangel's landlord knew of his use of the apartment for a campaign office and did not see it as illegal. And the committee records reflect that an attorney for the New York housing authority testified that the use decision was up to the landlord. If somebody rented the apartment that was not technically protected by the rent stabilization law, the tenant is not protected; however, the lease is permitted. That's what the attorney for the housing authority said. And I don't know whether that's right or wrong, but that's what Charlie Rangel believed, that's what his landlord believed, and that's what the housing authority lawyer believed. Now let's talk about this apartment. It had been vacant for months. Charlie paid sticker price for the rent. He passed nobody on the waiting list. This is not a corrupt scheme. To the extent that there is a violation, let's punish him consistent with others who have had problems. Earl Hilliard, for example, was found by the committee to have been paying more than market rent for his campaign headquarters; the rent paid to family members who owned the building. He was not censured. He wasn't even reprimanded. He received a committee letter. Other cases involving campaign violations and use of official resources have not resulted in censure. One example is the case of Bud Shuster for violations of House rules related to campaign and other violations. He was found to have knowingly allowed a former employee- turned-lobbyist to communicate with him within 12 months following her resignation, to influence his schedule and give him advice pertaining to his office. He was also found to have violated the House gift rule, to have misused official congressional resources, misused official congressional staff for campaign purposes, and to have made certain expenditures from his campaign accounts for expenses that were not for bona fide campaign or political purposes. Yet he received a letter, not a censure, not even a reprimand. Although both of those cases involved personal financial gain and intentional violations of the rules, the sanction for both was a letter of reproval. Mr. Rangel neither personally benefited nor intended to violate the rules. There is an issue now of his failure to report income on rental property, on property he owned in the Dominican Republic, and report those appropriately on his disclosure statement. I say ``properly,'' because ownership and some rental payments were in fact reported on his disclosure, so there's nothing to cover up. And while he did not file all his reports properly, these are not matters that warrant censure. Mistakes made on disclosure are usually corrected with nothing more said. The only cases where there is a violation, a sanction, for failing to disclose are cases where there is some corrupt cover-up. For example, failing to file campaign contributions from Tonsong Park during Korea-Gate or failing to have loans or assets with those who would reveal a conflict of interest. The committee found no evidence that failure to report was for financial gain or cover-up. The tax issues. Comment was made that he hadn't paid taxes for 17 years. Let's say a word about those taxes. Tax matters involved a deal where he and many others had pooled their rents and paid expenses and anything left over was profit. Well, it wasn't as profitable as they hoped. He got a couple of small checks over all those years and that was it. However, one of the bills paid was his mortgage. And diminution of principal is technically income on which you have to pay taxes. Whatever sanction there should be for that transgression should be consistent with precedents. The only example of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this House in the history of the United States have been those who did not pay taxes on bribes they received. That's it. All we ask is that he be sanctioned like everyone else. Since there is no indication that Charlie Rangel's reporting violations were intended for financial gain, concealment or other corruption, censure is clearly not the just sanction. Moreover, he hired a forensic accountant to assure that all of the matters have been cleared up. He knows he messed up. He knows he'll be punished. We just ask that he be punished like everybody else. Unfortunately, Charlie Rangel will be punished for his transgressions but neither the nature of the offenses nor their cumulative impact has been a sufficient basis for censure of any other Member in the past. Nor has the level of one's position been a basis for sanction as we said in the case of Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay. Both had multiple serious violations that were intentional with aggravations such as concealment, lying and failure to heed warnings, none of which are in this case. All the instances of censure, reprimand, reproval, admonishment and other cases of sanctioning make it clear that censure is not an appropriate sanction in this case. Now, Charlie is not asking to be excused for his conduct. He accepts responsibility. All we ask is that we cite what has been done in the past for conduct similar to his and apply a sanction similar to those sanctions. And based on the precedent, there is no precedence for a censure in this case. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman 10 more seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Could the Speaker advise me how much time is remaining.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4783, with particular reference to the Pigford late filer claims provision, regarding claims of widespread, rampant racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture against black farmers. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the 18,000 farms, the 18,000, many more than 18,000 farmers, former farmers, many of them lost their farms and others tried, and they were too subjected to racial discrimination. But in 1999 the court ruled that black farmers who farmed between 1981 and 1996 and who had filed a complaint against the department by July 1, 1997, were eligible to seek monetary compensation from the government if they could prove their case. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of black farmers complained that they were not made aware of the July 1997 cutoff date. To provide relief to those farmers left out of the original action, Congress authorized a cause of action for those late filers who were denied a determination on the merits of their discrimination claims, and those claims have now been settled, conditioned upon congressional appropriation of $1.15 billion. This bill provides the funding for the resolution of the longstanding claims for those who can prove it. This settlement is long overdue, and I hope my colleagues will approve this matter, as we have twice before, to bring this longstanding matter to a close. Mr. Speaker, finally, I would like to thank my fellow Virginian, John Boyd, the president of the National Black Farmers Association for his hard work over many years on behalf of black farmers.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, a version of this section-by- section analysis was included in the Record during the debate on this bill. The version below incorporates a few modest but important clarifications. I would ask that in the permanent Record, the version below replace the version now found in the September 28, 2010 daily edition of the Record, beginning on page H7159. H.R. 6198, THE BANKRUPTCY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2010 SECTION-BY-

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of one of the Commonwealth of Virginia's finest public servants, a great man of faith and a trusted friend, former State Senator Dr. W. Henry Maxwell. This past Saturday, Dr. Maxwell passed away, and I would like to take a brief moment to celebrate his life and legacy. A lifelong resident of Newport News, Dr. Maxwell was born on April 3, 1935, and graduated from Carver High School in 1951. Having been raised in the church, Dr. Maxwell nurtured a deep and abiding faith that eventually led him into the ministry. In 1967, he was ordained into gospel ministry and he formalized his calling, receiving both a bachelor of theology degree and a doctorate of divinity from Virginia Seminary and College. It is hard to separate the life and legacy of Dr. Maxwell from the history of Ivy Baptist Church, the institution that Dr. Maxwell faithfully led for 37 years. Under his leadership, the church grew in size, purchased a new house of worship, and established a child care and learning center. As a fitting tribute to his years of dedicated service, Ivy Baptist erected the W. Henry Maxwell Family Life Center in 1999. If Dr. Maxwell's only contribution to his community was as a pastor, he would have had a lasting legacy. But Dr. Maxwell was a civic activist and a public servant who was fond of saying: ``If one was to be concerned about man, he should be concerned about the laws that govern man.'' Dr. Maxwell was an effective and hard-working legislator and a strong voice for the downtrodden. When I first became involved in community activities and politics in my hometown of Newport News, I was following in Dr. Maxwell's footsteps. Dr. Maxwell was serving as President of the Newport News branch of the NAACP when I came back to Newport News after finishing law school, and I was honored to step into his shoes in 1975 as President of the branch. Dr. Maxwell ran for Newport News City Council in 1976. Although his campaign was unsuccessful, the work of his campaign served as a foundation for my successful run for the Virginia House of Delegates in 1977. During my tenure in the Virginia House of Delegates, Dr. Maxwell was a trusted advisor and friend. When I was elected to the State Senate in 1983, Dr. Maxwell was elected to my House of Delegates seat. We served as colleagues in the Virginia General Assembly, until I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992. Following my election, Dr. Maxwell was successfully elected to the State Senate. Dr. Maxwell's tenure in the Virginia General Assembly as both a member of the House of Delegates and the State Senate, was characterized by a deep tie to the needs of his community. He was critical in obtaining state funds to restore the historic Newsome House and support its use as a community cultural center. He was an advocate for the continued operation of the Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind. He was also instrumental in ensuring that judges in Virginia properly reflected the community they served. In addition to his formal duties as a member of the House of Delegates and a State Senator, Dr. Maxwell was engaged in many civic organizations. He was a Life Member of the NAACP, member of the board of trustees of the Peninsula Economic Development Council, the United Way of the Peninsula, and the Newport News Alliance for Youth. Madam Speaker, the city of Newport News has lost a great public servant and I have lost a dear friend. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to Dr. Maxwell's wife of 53 years, Gladys, their children Walter, Ronald, and Angela, great-grandchildren, sisters Pauline, Sallie, Shirley and Gwendolyn, brothers Wesley and Thomas, nieces, nephews, other family and friends and the Ivy Baptist Church community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia lost a dedicated public servant. I had the honor and privilege of serving with Owen both in the Virginia House of Delegates as well as Congress, and I join my colleague Mr. Moran, in stating that Owen Pickett was a true statesman and effective legislator who enjoyed great respect on both sides of the aisle. As has already been pointed out, although he retired almost a decade ago, he remained an important, active voice on issues affecting Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia. I thank my colleague from Virginia and all of my colleagues from Virginia for the great respect and admiration that they have shown to Owen Pickett.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when a veto message on H.R. 3808 is laid before the House on this legislative day, then after the message is read and the objections of the President are spread at large upon the Journal, further consideration of the veto message and the bill shall be postponed until the legislative day of Wednesday, November 17, 2010; and that on that legislative day, the House shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Bishop Samuel Green, Jr., Pastor of St. Johns Church in Newport News, Virginia. This is the 50th anniversary of Bishop Green's service to St. Johns and the people of Newport News, and I would like to take this moment to recognize some of his numerous accomplishments during that time. A native of Norfolk, Virginia, Bishop Green is a graduate of Booker T. Washington High School. He studied at both Norfolk State University and Old Dominion University, and received his Master's in Divinity and Doctorate of Ministry from Norfolk Seminary and College. Bishop Green married his childhood sweetheart, Vivian Frazier Green in 1946. They were married for 61 years and had nine children. A true partner in his ministry, Mrs. Green passed away in 2007. Bishop Green became pastor of St. Johns in 1960. In this position, Bishop Green has been an extraordinary shepherd over a vibrant and growing flock. He has served on countless church and community boards and commissions, and his exceptional service has earned him honors and citations from the Clergy Economic Education Foundation, the Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Project, and the cities of Norfolk and Roanoke. Bishop Green has received an Honorary Doctorate of Divinity from Trinity Hall College and Seminary and an Honorary Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Studies. In 1973, Bishop Green was appointed Prelate of the Second Jurisdiction, State of Virginia, by the Presidium Board of the Churches of God in Christ, Inc. He was named successor to his mentor, the late Bishop D. Lawrence Williams. Under Bishop Green's leadership, the 52 church jurisdiction has grown to 72 churches. In 1984, Bishop Green was elected to the General Board of the Churches of God in Christ, Inc. He is currently serving his sixth term in office. In 1978, Bishop Green announced to his congregation that he had been called to establish the Faith for Living Television Outreach Ministry. Starting with a group of 120 supporters, the ministry has grown to the point where Rev. Green now owns WJCB TV-49. The ministry, honored by the National Religious Broadcasters Association, sponsors a television program that airs nationally on the Inspirational Cable Network (INSP) on Sunday mornings. On the occasion of his 50th anniversary, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and commend Bishop Samuel L. Green, Jr. for his service and dedication to the parishioners of St. Johns Church of God in Christ, the people of Newport News, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.