Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5662) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the offense of stalking, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 1990, then-President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. It was the most significant federal civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both signed by President Lyndon Johnson. And overall it has been a tremendous success. The ADA was enacted to protect individuals with disabilities from being discriminated against in employment, public entities and transportation, public accommodations, and telecommunications. It created a promise of inclusion and equal opportunity, so that all Americans can live up to their full potential, encouraging and enabling individuals with disabilities to participate in the social and economic fabric of American life. As a result of the ADA, millions more people with disabilities are working, living independently, and actively using public accommodations that so many of us take for granted. But it was not the first legislation to do so. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1980s, when I was a member of the Virginia General Assembly, sixty-four disability organizations formed a coalition known as INVEST--INsure Virginians Equal Status Today--to pass a state statute in Virginia to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination. I was a Member of the Senate Committee on General Laws, the Committee that considered the legislation, and we dealt with many of the central issues that needed to be addressed, such as what constitutes a reasonable accommodation. We worked through all of those issues, and the Virginians with Disabilities Act was signed into law by former Gov. Charles S. Robb in 1985. Today the Act protects nearly one million residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This Act acknowledged that ``it is the policy of the Commonwealth to encourage and enable persons with disabilities to participate fully and equally in the social and economic life . . .'' and it protects Virginians with disabilities from discrimination in employment, education, housing, voting, and places of public accommodation. It preceded the federal Americans with Disabilities Act by five years, and many of the key concepts in the Virginia statute formed the basis of the ADA. The landmark Virginians with Disabilities Act is the Commonwealth's commitment to encourage persons with disabilities to participate fully in the social and economic life of the Commonwealth. Five years later, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted to protect all Americans against discrimination on the basis of disability. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that 20 years later we are able to look back upon the passage of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and recognize the importance of this legislation and the changes it has made in American society. But our work is not yet done. The law is stable yet it cannot stand still; it must continue to evolve. On this 20th anniversary of the ADA, while we acknowledge the progress we have made, we must also examine the challenges that still remain. We must continue to revisit the ADA and to examine whether it is accomplishing its purpose to the fullest extent possible, and when we find that it is not, we must be willing to make the changes necessary to do so. One recent example of this willingness occurred last Congress when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and became effective on January 1st, 2009. The ADA Amendments Act restored the ADA to Congress' original intent by clarifying that coverage under the ADA is broad and covers anyone who faces unfair discrimination because of a disability, and it overturned several court decisions that held that people with disabilities would lose their coverage under the ADA simply because their condition is treatable with medication or can be addressed with the help of assistive technology. That legislation was the direct result of the business and disability communities working together to rectify a problem that was created by the courts. It is my hope that this kind of commitment, determination and cooperation will continue into the future until we have broken down all barriers to individuals with disabilities. Today, we break another barrier, because Congress has taken a step toward greater accessibility by making the House rostrum wheelchair accessible for the first time. I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, Congressman James R. Langevin, who today presided over the House Floor as Speaker Pro Tempore, as is his right and honor as a member of Congress. It is my hope that we will continue to break down barriers in the Halls of Congress, on Main Street U.S.A., and throughout the world.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am very pleased to join my colleagues in support of the legislation today, which includes the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. Others have spoken about the epidemic of crime in our Nation's Indian lands, but unfortunately the tribes have reported that many of the crimes, including the very serious crimes such as rape and assault, are not included among those prosecuted in Federal courts by U.S. Attorneys either as a matter of case priorities or limited resources. With inadequate funding and limited prosecutorial authority of the tribes, even when the crimes are prosecuted in tribal court, the limitation of 12 months on sentences in tribal court does not allow sentences to address the more serious crimes. This bill allows tribal authorities to respond to such crimes and to do so with more appropriate consequences for the more serious and dangerous offenders. At the same time, it improves the procedures in tribal courts and better protects the rights of tribal defendants. Moreover, as it authorizes more robust enforcement and more appropriate sentences, it also authorizes key programs to address the root causes of crime. These include juvenile delinquency prevention and summer youth programs, as well as drug and alcohol abuse programs. Finally, while empowering tribes to better police themselves, the bill also addresses Federal law enforcement to do more and improves the coordination among tribal, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. This is a practical effort to solve a very significant problem in our country. Mr. Speaker, this is a rare crime bill that comes to the floor of this body with the kind of broad, bipartisan support that the Tribal Law and Order Act has earned. This bill has the unanimous support of the Senate. It has the support of tribal governments and organizations. It has the support from the Justice Department and outside law enforcement groups such as the National District Attorneys Association. We also have the support of Amnesty International. With that kind of bipartisan support, I urge all of the Members to vote ``yes'' on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, which will promote competitiveness, innovation, exports, and, most importantly, jobs in the Richmond, Virginia area. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act, and I thank Chairman Levin and the Ways and Means Committee for their diligent work on this bill over the last two years. The legislation before the House today will help American manufacturers compete at home and abroad by temporarily providing import relief on certain intermediate products or materials that are not made domestically or are not opposed by domestic producers. This bill will help level the playing field of U.S. firms, increase competitiveness of American products at home and abroad, provide support for tens of thousands of American jobs, and help increase American production and expand our nation's gross domestic product by billions of dollars. As we continue our economic recovery, this bill is an important short-term action that Congress can take now to protect and expand American jobs and provide another boost to our economy. I especially appreciate the Committee's work to include several duty suspensions for Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex, a distributor of small kitchen appliances based in Richmond, Virginia. These duty suspensions for Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex were first included in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule by Senator George Allen in 2006. I was happy to support the extensions of these duty suspensions in the 110th Congress and I thank the Chairman for including these suspensions in this bill. By providing this import relief through 2012, these duty suspensions will protect important manufacturing jobs in and around my Congressional district. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act will promote competitiveness, innovation, exports and, most importantly, job creation for American manufacturers. I urge my colleagues to support this important job protection and job creation legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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 resolution under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 1470 honors the life, achievements, and distinguished career of Chief Justice William S. Richardson. Chief Justice Richardson was a leading proponent of the rights of Native Americans throughout his 16-year tenure as Hawaii State Supreme Court Chief Justice. He was primarily known for drawing on ancestral Hawaiian customs rather than Western common law in his decisions. He has been credited with triggering a ``renaissance'' in pride in native identity and the language and culture of Native Hawaiians. Born in 1919, William Richardson worked his way through the University of Hawaii, where he received his undergraduate degree. He went on to earn a law degree from the University of Cincinnati. Upon graduating from law school in 1941, he volunteered for the Army Air Corps, and later served as a platoon leader with the 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment. After World War II ended, he returned to Hawaii, where he served in the Judge Advocate General Corps. He was later inducted into the Infantry Office Candidate School Hall of Fame. Fueled by a sense of patriotism, William Richardson aligned himself with the emerging Hawaii Democratic Party, eventually serving as its chairman from 1956 to 1962. In 1963, he became the lieutenant governor under Governor John Burns. Just a few years later, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court, where he served for 16 years. Under Chief Justice Richardson's guidance, the Hawaii Supreme Court oversaw judgments ensuring public beach access, expanding Native Hawaiian rights to use private property, and affirming public ownership of natural resources. He was famously quoted as saying that ``the Western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawaii.'' Education was paramount to Chief Justice Richardson. One of his proudest accomplishments was his successful effort to see a law school opened in Hawaii. In 1973 The University of Hawaii opened the only law school in the State. It was named the William S. Richardson School of Law upon his retirement from the bench. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1470) honoring the life, achievements, and distinguished career of Chief Justice William S. Richardson.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two colleagues from Hawaii for their bipartisan cooperation on this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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 Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation addresses a disturbing subject in need of congressional action. In the late 1990s, Congress was made aware of a growing market of videotapes and still photographs depicting animals, typically small animals, being slowly and sadistically crushed to death. These depictions are commonly referred to as ``crush videos.'' Much of the material features women inflicting torture with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes. The depictions often appeal to people with a very specific sexual fetish. Even in States where harming the animals in such a way itself violates State laws prohibiting cruelty to animals, prosecutors had difficulty obtaining convictions. For example, the faces of the persons inflicting the torture were often not shown in the videos; and the locations, times and dates of the acts could not be ascertained from the depictions themselves. So defendants were often able to successfully assert as a defense that the State could not prove its jurisdiction over the place where the acts occurred nor that it could prove that the actions took place within the statute of limitations. In short, it has been difficult enough to find the perpetrators of the underlying acts of cruelty to animals. Then, even after they have been found, it has been difficult to obtain convictions. So Congress enacted a new law prohibiting the creation, sale, and possession of the depictions of such acts. The new law was codified as section 48 of title XVIII of the U.S. Code. The motivation for passing the law was to address the sale of crush videos, but the statute was written in such a way that it also could be read, in some circumstances, to apply to more mainstream material, such as videos depicting hunting and fishing and other activity protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Because of this susceptibility to a broader reading, in April the United States Supreme Court invalidated the entire statute in the case United States v. Stevens, holding that the law was overbroad and violated the First Amendment. The Court made it clear, however, it did not rule out the possibility of Congress' adopting a bill that would hold up under constitutional scrutiny. In May, the Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing about the decision. It heard from witnesses who testified that a narrower legislative approach would likely be constitutional and survive court challenge. The bill before us is much more narrow than the original law. The most important difference is that the bill would only prohibit the sale of crush videos that are obscene under current law. This would address a key flaw in the original statute because obscenity is outside the protections of the First Amendment. Whereas some of the activity covered by the prior law under the broader reading was, in fact, protected by the First Amendment, a much narrower range of conduct is covered in the depictions prohibited by this bill. Furthermore, this legislation specifically makes it clear that hunting and fishing videos would not be covered by the prohibition. I commend my colleague from California (Mr. Gallegly) and my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Peters), who worked together to produce this bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5566) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interstate commerce in animal crush videos, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1749) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession or use of cell phones and similar wireless devices by Federal prisoners, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2010 will address an ongoing problem of cell phones being smuggled into prisons by visitors and prison guards. Prison inmate cell phone accessibility has resulted in offenders facilitating and committing crimes with the use of the cell phones. Gangs have also become far more organized because members in prison have cell phone access. S. 1749 amends Federal law to make cell phones and similar devices contraband that Federal prisoners are prohibited from possessing. Some have argued that cell phone smuggling is a direct reaction to the outrageous costs inmates and their families pay for telephone calls while a person is incarcerated. Prisons and jails require that inmates call their families collect or pay for calls with their prison accounts. And, indeed, phone companies charge much more for calls from prisons than they charge for calls made from outside prison. For example, one organization found that a 15-minute collect call made from San Quentin Prison to Oakland, both in California, would cost $5; whereas, the same collect call made from outside the prison would be about $2.55. That's for a collect call. It would be even cheaper if a reliable way were established for inmates to pay for their own calls. S. 1749 requires the GAO to study the issue of exorbitant prison telephone rates and the gulf between those rates as the first step to finally bringing those rates down to reasonable levels so that inmates and their families have a much easier time staying in touch. In addition, the study will look at State and Federal efforts to prevent smuggling of cell phones into prisons and jails. Although we should not allow prisoners to have access to cell phones while incarcerated, it is appropriate to provide them with telephone service at reasonable rates in order for them to maintain ties with their families and children. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1469) to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to establish a permanent background check system, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1469, the Child Protection Improvements Act of 2009, will permanently authorize the National Child Safety Program. Passed in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act, the National Child Safety Pilot Program assists organizations in checking criminal records of volunteers before placing them as mentors with children. Every year, millions of Americans generously give their time and energy to volunteer and mentor children across the country. While most of these volunteers and mentors are only interested in being good role models to children, it is important that we are able to identify those who seek to do harm. The National Child Safety Pilot Program has enabled youth-serving organizations to access the FBI's national fingerprint-based background check system since 2003. By providing access to the more comprehensive data in the FBI's database, rather than just the in-State background check that would otherwise be available, the program has helped to prevent child predators and sex offenders from getting access to children through legitimate mentoring programs. Notably, 6 percent of checks have come back showing serious criminal records. In a study of the pilot program, it was found that over 41 percent of the individuals with criminal histories had committed an offense in a State other than the State in which they were applying to be a volunteer. In these cases, a State-based search would not have provided a complete picture of the person's criminal record. Over 50 percent of the individuals found to have a criminal history had falsely indicated on their application form that they did not have a criminal history, even when the volunteers knew a background check was going to be performed. This is a noncontroversial fee-based program that has successfully provided invaluable information to mentoring organizations at no cost to taxpayers. It makes sense to now make the program permanent. I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Schiff) for his hard work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) a former prosecutor and the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to, again, thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on this issue. I ask my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.