Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, it is unfortunate that we are again debating how to reduce juvenile crime and violence. Rather than following through on the proven crime and violence prevention techniques that work, we are back to tough-talking sound byte policies that have been proven to not only fail to reduce crime but actually increase crime, waste taxpayers' money and discriminate against minorities. Seven years ago, it was the Violent Youth Predator Act. Now it is the ``Gang Busters'' bill, with the same array of poll-tested sound bytes: trying more juveniles as adults and mandatory minimum sentences. The bill includes mandatory life or death penalties, even for unintentional acts.

This bill is in no way like the bill we developed a few years ago on a bipartisan basis to address youth crime and violence following the dark days following the Columbine school shootings. That bill was cosponsored by all of the members of the Subcommittee on Crime and was based on combined wisdom and expertise of law enforcement, juvenile court judges, administrators, researchers, criminologists and juvenile justice advocates along with the entire political spectrum.

All of the Hastert-Gephardt Task Force members called witnesses to let us know what we should do to reduce crime and violence amongst juveniles. Not a single one of those witnesses said we needed to add more Federal mandatory minimum sentences. Not one mentioned the death penalty. Not one said anything about trying more juveniles as adults. Not one. The fully bipartisan bill we developed from recommendations of those experts was full of collaborative efforts between Federal, State, and local officials aimed at addressing the problems caused by young people and addressing them early, focused on prevention and keeping them out of trouble to begin with. And when they first get in trouble, intervene early and provide sufficient sanctions and services to get them back on the straight and narrow. Further, if they do come back, hit them with graduated sanctions and services to the extent required to address the problem, including keeping them away from or getting them out of gang activities. At that time, as now, we can try juveniles as adults as early as 13-years old and sentence them with harsh sentences when they commit serious, violent offenses, both at the Federal as well as the State level.

So make no mistake about it: The children affected by this bill will be those children whose roles in gang crimes are minor or fringe, because we are already trying youth who commit serious violent offenses as adults and locking them up for long periods of time. It is the lesser offenders, the children who get in fist fights, committing misdemeanors, who will be subject to the 10-year, mandatory minimum numbers in this bill. Those who commit murder or rape or chop off hands with machetes or even conspire to do that are already subject to life sentences. So the 10-year mandatory minimums will be the friends who get in fights.

Madam Chairman, we already lock up more people than anywhere on earth: 714 per 100,000, way above whatever is in second place, way above the national average of 100 per 100,000. In fact, whereas there is 1 out of 63 white youth 25- to 29-years old in jail today, we lock up one out of every 8 African-American youth in jail today. This bill, with all of its discriminatory policies, will only add to that disparity. And for what? A long line of studies conducted by the Department of Justice and crime researchers have consistently told us that treating more juveniles as adults will increase crime and violence.

The Coalition of Juvenile Justice study, ``Childhood on Trial,'' coincidentally released the same day as this bill was introduced, covers thousands of cases over a long period of time and confirmed that adult treatment of more juveniles increases crime and violence and is discriminatory in its application. That is primarily because if the judge finds a person guilty in adult court, his only possibilities are lock the child up with adults or let them walk on probation or parole. If they get locked up with adults, they will obviously come out worse than they went in. And so the studies show that if we increase the number of juveniles tried as adults we will not only increase crime, but we will increase violent crime.

Now, this bill not only includes provisions to try more juveniles as adults. It also includes more mandatory minimums. We know from all of the credible research, mandatory minimum sentences are the most costly and least effective way to address crime. As compared to intelligent approaches, like having the worst offenders get the most time and lesser offenders get less time, or drug treatment for drug-addicted offenders, mandatory minimum sentences have been shown to waste money and discriminate against minorities. That is why the Federal Judicial Conference has told us time and time again that mandatory minimum sentences violate common sense.

We also know that the death penalty is not only flawed, but is disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor. It also does not reduce crime. Some 199 people have been freed from Death Row over the last 10 years because they were innocent of the crimes for which they received the death penalty. Now, until we fund the innocence protection provisions we passed last year, we should not be passing new death penalties.

But unfortunately, despite all of our agreement and progress, we have failed in the most important aspect of our prior work, and that is to provide adequate funding for the initiatives that we passed. The most money we have ever been able to get appropriated for the juvenile justice bills was $55 million a year, about one-tenth of what was necessary. We are, in fact, cutting funding for these programs in our budget, and also cutting money for local law enforcement. And this bill provides nothing for prevention, nothing for early intervention, and virtually nothing in the bill goes to local law enforcement. It all goes to Federal prosecution and incarceration. Instead, almost $400 million in the bill will go to the Federal prosecutors and possibly billions to locking up people under the long mandatory minimum sentences.

Madam Chairman, we have a choice in crime policy. We can play politics, or we can reduce crime. And we know what to do to reduce crime. All the researchers have told us. In fact, a few weeks ago I met with some students at Monument High School in South Boston, Massachusetts, and I told them about this upcoming hearing we were having on the gang bill, and I asked them what did they think needed to be done to keep kids out of gangs. They said, kids join gangs for reputation, protection, to feel wanted, to have friends, and to get money. And what is needed to prevent them from joining gangs was ample recreation for boys as well as girls, jobs and internships for training and money, and assistance to allow their families to live in decent homes.

Recently, I met with law enforcement officials in my district, and they had similar advice. Neither group said anything about the need for more mandatory minimums, trying more juveniles as adults, or new death penalties. None of them asked us to waste money on these programs.

But we took their advice a few years ago and actually started the process for doing what was necessary to reduce crime: prevention and early intervention. But we did not finish the job of funding the programs. We should fund juvenile justice prevention programs, early intervention programs, and local law enforcement instead of passing this bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to say, first of all, that my distinguished colleague from Virginia and I will be working together later this week if they try to close any military bases. But on this bill we, unfortunately, have to disagree.

First of all, Madam Chairman, murder, rape, kidnapping are already illegal in every State. Interstate gang members can be caught by RICO and organized crime, continuing criminal enterprise, FBI is already working on that. But this bill contains a provision that fist fights can subject young people to 10-year mandatory minimums.

The after-school programs that have been disparaged are the kinds of things that will actually reduce gang involvement. You can disparage them by calling it arts and crafts for gang members. But if you ask the researchers what will actually make a difference, it is those after- school programs to give the kids constructive things to do with their time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a former prosecutor.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

If the bill passes or does not pass, it will still be illegal to stab someone 16 times. What we ought to be looking at are the kinds of initiatives that will reduce the chances that that will happen again.

Giving a 10-year mandatory minimum for a second offense fist fight is not going to reduce the chance that someone will be stabbed 16 times when you are not funding any of the programs that are desperately needed to actually reduce juvenile crime.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Madam Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Whether this bill passes or not, murder, rape, robbery will be illegal. People will be prosecuted. They will get time in jail. In fact, as I indicated before, for 15- to 19-year-old African Americans in this country, one out of eight are already in jail today. This bill, which will try more juveniles as adults, will not only increase the number in jail but will also increase the crime rate.

Mandatory minimums have been shown to be discriminatory and waste the taxpayers' money. The death penalty is discriminatory and does not do anything about crime. This bill will give 10 years mandatory minimums to second-offense fist fights, and that is not the kind of sentence that is going to do anything about these violent kinds of crimes that my colleagues are talking about. Ten years, mandatory minimum, second offense, fist fight.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman to please explain the modification, if that is not part of his presentation.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, how does the modification change the original manager's amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to seek the time in opposition although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the House that it is already illegal to murder, rape, kidnap, cut off hands with machete attacks, conspiracy to do any of those acts. We lock people up for that. In fact, since we are talking about immigrants, one in 27 Hispanic males 25 to 29 are in jail today already. Those are crimes. They are doing the time. Also, for those who are crossing State lines and all that, we have RICO, Continuing Criminal Enterprise. That is already the law.

But this amendment just adds insult. And let us be clear: Second- offense fist fight by a bunch of kids, under the bill, is 10 years mandatory minimum. This adds 5 years to the 10-year mandatory minimum for second-offense fist fighting. I think that is excessive. If the fist fight deserves more time, the Sentencing Commission can deal with that. I would hope that we would defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the House that it is illegal to chop off fingers and you will be given more time than this bill will provide. Murdering 28 people is also already illegal, whether this bill passes or not.

But this amendment just adds insult to injury. If a child comes into the country because his parents snuck into the country to work, this bill, the underlying bill provides for a 10-year mandatory minimum for a fist -fight. This just adds 5 more years of insult.

I would hope we defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because we have not studied this. This issue did not come before the committee. We do not know anything about the accuracy of the data that may be circulated. We do not know what it is going to cost. And we particularly do not know whether or not this is a good cost-effective way of providing homeland security. For example, this will do nothing to prevent an Oklahoma bombing, where the problem was domestic.

If we are going to spend money in homeland security, we ought to put it where it is most needed. We have not studied to determine whether this is the best use of the money or not. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would not pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat the amendment. As I said, it may or may not, we do not know, be a cost-effective use of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say, this is interesting timing of the amendment, because we just passed the Goodlatte amendment, and now we are going to study, I guess, whether or not we should have passed it because, as the gentleman from Georgia has indicated, we do not know the link between illegal aliens and gang membership, and so we have to study it. We just passed an amendment to add 5 years mandatory minimum to sentences if a couple of them get into a fist fight. So I guess it is nice to know whether we should have passed it or not, but I just want to point out that it is an interesting place to consider this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Having heard the distinguished views from my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), I am convinced that the amendment is well taken, however misplaced in time. We should have considered this before the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia, but as my colleague has said, better late than never.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind Members of the House that murders are already illegal. Intentional murder subjects you to either the death penalty or mandatory life. Racketeering and those other charges are illegal. The mandatory minimums in the bill apply to second-offense fist fights, and I guess if you are an illegal immigrant, you get an additional 5 years mandatory minimum.

If that is not enough, Mr. Chairman, we have already said that, for those 25 to 29 in the African-American community, 1 out of 8 are already in jail today. Apparently, that is not enough penalty, and we need to increase it.

The Sentencing Commission has studied the impact of mandatory minimum sentences and have found that they not only violate the entire purpose of the Sentencing Commission, but they are also applied in a racially discriminatory manner. We also have found, Mr. Chairman, that the Rand Corporation has studied mandatory minimums and found that it is not a cost-effective sentencing scheme. They found that compared to a more intelligent scheme where the more serious criminals get more time and less serious get less time, mandatory minimums are less effective in reducing crime. They are also much less effective than drug rehabilitation for drug penalties. So we have the Rand Corporation designating mandatory minimums as a waste of the taxpayers' money.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States presiding, has written us a letter saying, not only that trying juveniles as adults is bad policy but also the mandatory minimums, and they have maintained opposition to mandatory minimums since 1953. They write: The reason is manifest. Mandatory minimums severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system. Mandatory minimums undermine the sentencing guideline regime Congress so carefully established in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by preventing the rational development of guidelines that reduce unwanted disparity and provide proportionality and fairness.

Mandatory minimums also destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains. In fact, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has documented that mandatory minimums have the opposite of their intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity.

Mandatory minimums also treat dissimilar offenders in a similar fashion, although these offenders can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society.

Finally, mandatory minimums require the sentencing court to impose the same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences and punishment. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the expansion of the Federal criminal justice system over juvenile offenders be seriously reconsidered, and that the mandatory minimum sentences provision in the bill be removed.

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what this amendment does, and I would hope that the amendment would be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, if you kill a police officer you are going to get death or life without parole. If you make any murder in the Federal system you are looking at life. If you are talking about the impact of this bill, it is a 10-year mandatory minimum for second- offense fist fights.

We have been asked where our compassion is for the victims. We have got mandatory minimums where you already know that it violates common sense, it wastes the taxpayers money, it fails to do anything about reducing crime. That is what the studies have shown. Trying juveniles as adults we know increases crime.

That is a good question. Where is your compassion for the victims when you are actually increasing crime? We know what works to reduce crime. We know what polls well, and what we need to do is have some compassion for common sense and actually enact those provisions that will reduce crime.

We know that prevention and early intervention work. You know, you can make jokes about it; but we know what works and we know what polls well. If we are going to show some compassion for our victims, we ought to do something to actually reduce crime.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial published this morning in the daily newspaper in Norfolk, Virginia, the Virginian Pilot, on this issue.

[From the Virginia Pilot, May 5, 2005]

A House Divided Against Itself

The mood in certain precincts of Congress has become so

poisonous that people aren't speaking our common language

unless they're accusing political opponents of unspeakable

crimes.

The ``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act'' would

make it a federal offense to take a minor across a state line

to get an abortion without the consent of her parents, for a

physician to perform such abortions, and allows parents to

sue anybody who does.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee offered several

amendments that would have limited the law's scope. U.S. Rep.

Bobby Scott, for example, sought to insert this line: ``The

prohibitions of this section do not apply with respect to

conduct by taxicab drivers, bus drivers or others in the

business of professional transport.''

Pretty straightforward, right?

Should the U.S. government prosecute a bus driver because a

girl in one of its seats is traveling to end a pregnancy? No

matter your answer to that question, the congressman's

wording is pretty clear, unless you're a member of the

Judiciary Committee's staff, which managed Scott's amendment

into this:

``Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted

sexual predators from prosecution if they're taxicab drivers,

bus drivers or others in the business of professional

transport.''

In other words, the staff of a committee on which Scott

serves accused him of trying to protect sexual predators,

arguably a crime in itself.

It is the kind of libel--repeated against two other

Democratic members of the committee--that only nameless,

faceless bureaucrat would dare make. But, significantly, it's

also the kind of power-made mischief that the Republican

leadership felt deserved defense.

The Congress Tuesday evening spent an hour debating a

resolution to require Republicans to change the descriptions,

which are supposed to be, and ordinarily are, written in dry,

neutral language.

That debate was itself illustrative of how deep the

divisions in Congress have become. While the Democrats--

including Scott and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi--talked

about how Republicans abused the truth to score political

points, the majority changed the subject entirely and re-

argued the merits of the abortion bill, which passed the week

before.

``The issue is whether we can trust each other to deal with

each other fairly,'' said Wisconsin Democrat Rep. David Obey,

who had voted for the abortion bill.

In the end, Tuesday's debate was a rancorous parry and

feint, lasted an eternity and came to absolutely nothing. The

resolution to change the descriptions, of course, failed on a

party-line vote.

Still, for 60 minutes, the rudeness that now rules the hall

of the Capitol was on sharp display for all America to see.

``The rewrite says more about the person who wrote it, and

those who defend it, than it does about the amendment

itself,'' Scott said Tuesday.

Scott's right. What is says is nothing kind, and not to be

forgotten.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education Act of the Future. This bill reauthorizes the Perkins Act, which provides career and technical education (CTE) programs at the State and local levels. In addition, the Perkins Act provides skill-building and academic opportunities for our youth and improves employment outcomes.

We live in an information and knowledge-based economy. It is imperative, therefore, that we continue to recognize that a strong academic foundation is necessary for all students emerging from high school. Moreover, the skills necessary for entering postsecondary education are similar to the skills necessary for success in the modem workplace. For example, it is a fact that high school students entering construction related apprenticeship programs must have algebra, geometry and trigonometry skills, which are also requirements for college university systems.

The research is clear. High school students completing a rigorous academic core coupled with a career concentration have test scores that are equal to or higher than those of students considered to be ``college prep''. They are more likely to pursue postsecondary education, have a higher grade point average in college, are less likely to drop out in their first year of college, and they have better employment and earnings outcomes than other students.

This bill will ensure that ``rigorous and challenging academic content'' in the high school curriculum is aligned with postsecondary education.

For the foregoing reasons, I encourage support for this bill to ensure that all high school students' educational needs are adequately met.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Marie V. McDemmond, who is retiring from her role as President of Norfolk State University (NSU).

During her inspiring career in higher education, Dr. McDemmond has served more than 35 years as an extraordinary leader and educator. Dr. McDemmond has worked tirelessly to ensure fair access to higher education for minority and underserved populations throughout the country. Her steadfast commitment to this principle is well documented through her testimony before Congress and her service on numerous national boards and commissions.

As a member of President Bush's Board of Advisors for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Dr. McDemmond's service has brought national recognition to the issue of equity in funding and support for minority-serving institutions throughout these United States.

Dr. McDemmond is the first woman to lead Norfolk State University and the first African-American woman to serve as President of a four-year college in Virginia. Her success has established the financial and academic credibility for her institution that exemplifies NSU's creed: ``Achieving with Excellence.''

In recognition of Dr. McDemmond's unwavering integrity, wisdom and dedicated service to others, members of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Congressional delegation offer the following:

Our Commonwealth owes Dr. McDemmond a debt of gratitude for

her outstanding commitment to higher education. Her

leadership has helped Norfolk State to gain the financial

resources and infrastructure necessary for prominence in

science and technology. The success of her efforts has earned

the accolades of government officials and legislators

throughout Virginia, and her insights have been sought on

several occasions by President George W. Bush. I join with

the other members of Virginia's Congressional Delegation in

commending Dr. McDemmond for a lifetime of exceptional

work.--Senator John Warner (R-VA)

Dr. McDemmond has been one of our Commonwealth's

outstanding educational and technological leaders. Her

tireless work to secure the financial resources necessary to

lead Norfolk State University to the forefront in science and

technology has helped close the so-called opportunity divide.

For her efforts, she has received wide recognition and much

deserved praise and admiration. She is a leader who will be

sorely missed, but I am confident she will continue to have a

great influence on Norfolk State's bright future--Senator

George Allen (R-VA)

Dr. Marie V. McDemmond has been an invaluable asset to

Norfolk State University and to higher education in Virginia.

Norfolk State University has truly benefited from her

innovative and visionary style, which has positioned the

university to excel in the 21st century. It has been a

distinct pleasure of mine to work with Dr. McDemmond

specifically in bridging the digital divide between

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other

universities. She will be very much missed at Norfolk State

University and within the entire collegiate community--

Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA)

Dr. McDemmond is everything a leader should be: full of

energy, dedicated to her students and determined to do the

very best for NSU. She has tremendous courage, and she is

always willing to tackle big challenges. Often such people

can be intimidating, but to the contrary, Dr. McDemmond is so

easy to work with. I consider her a great friend, and my

prayers are with her as she retires from her service--

Congresswoman Thelma Drake (R-VA)

Under the leadership of Dr. Marie McDemmond, Norfolk State

University (NSU) has developed into a vibrant institution

with cutting edge programs and operations. Dr. McDemmond has

positioned NSU as a regional leader in information

technologies and other fields in the southeastern U.S. and a

national leader among minority serving institutions. While

Dr. McDemmond's leadership of NSU will be sorely missed, we

are gratified to know that she has chosen to continue to

serve NSU and the greater higher education community by

teaching at NSU. The lives of all she has touched through her

dedication and service have been made richer and we are

grateful to her for her important contributions--Congressman

Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (R-VA)

On the occasion of her retirement, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and commend Dr. McDemmond for her service and dedication to the cause of higher education in Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I rise in support of the resolution. H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, makes it illegal to transport a minor across State lines for the purposes of getting an abortion. Now, transport is not defined in the bill.

When the Judiciary Committee marked up the bill, I offered an amendment which said simply that we should exempt taxicab drivers and others in the business of professional transport from the transportation provisions of the bill, because as written, it would be a Federal crime for a taxicab driver to take a young woman who gets in a cab and says, take me to the abortion clinic so I can get an abortion.

If the taxicab driver complied with that task, he would be committing a Federal crime. Now, even if he were not prosecuted, there is a civil liability provision in the bill which exposes the cab driver and through the principles of agency, the entire cab company, to civil liability by the parents of the young woman who find out how she got to the clinic.

So let me read my amendment: ``The prohibitions of this section shall not apply with respect to conduct of taxicab drivers, bus drivers or others in the business of professional transport.''

However, the report in the markup filed by the majority described the amendment thusly: ``Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers or others in the business of professional transport.''

Now, I will let the public decide whether or not that is a distortion. I believe that it is. But I would just say that if a prosecutor has evidence that a person is a sexual predator, the last thing they would do would be to go to this provision of the code, which is a misdemeanor, rather than the various felonies that they could prosecute the person for.

The amendment does not immunize a sexual predator from the crimes of being a sexual predator, just the provisions of this transportation provision which is just a misdemeanor.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in any event, whatever you think of the bill, this distortion obviously speaks to character; but in my view, the descriptions in the committee report and the distortion of those amendments, particularly the one I just described, say more about the character of the person responsible for describing the amendment that way and the character of those trying to defend the distortion, than it does about my amendment.

I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, hope that we would pass the resolution so that the House will not be on record as condoning such misrepresentations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly about the distortion in the description of my amendment in the committee report. First, the suggestion, as the gentleman from New York has indicated, the suggestion that we had an opportunity to respond to the majority report is just not accurate. Perhaps we need to change the rules in light of this distortion, but the dissenting views explain our opposition to the bill, and we do not see the majority report prior to the submission of the dissenting views. Therefore, we had no way of knowing that such distortions would be part of the committee report.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill makes it illegal to transport a minor across State lines for the purpose of getting an abortion. Let me read my amendment. ``The prohibitions of this section do not apply with respect to conduct by taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers, or others in the business of professional transport.'' It was described in the report as saying: ``Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport.''

Let me just say that if a person is known to be a sexual predator, the last thing a prosecutor would have done would be to say, aha, we have him for transporting a minor across State lines as a taxicab driver, and we can get him for a misdemeanor; when, obviously, if they can show that he is a sexual predator, they have many felonies they could prosecute him for. But my view on the description and the distortion of this amendment is that it says more about the character of the persons responsible for describing the amendment that way, or for those trying to defend the distortion, than it does about the amendment.

I would point out that the Committee on Rules changed the description from the distortion in the committee report and described it as follows: ``Amendment immunizes taxicab drivers, bus drivers, and others in the business of professional transport; doctors and nurses and others, medical providers or their staff, from the transportation provision of the bill.'' A description of what the amendment says, a clarification of the distortion, but again, Mr. Speaker, it just says more about the character of the people who wrote that distortion than it does about the amendment.

I would hope that we would adopt an amendment to the rules that would require the Committee on Rules to eliminate that distortion so that the public will be accurately informed as to what is in the bill and the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the bill makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor across State lines with the intent that the minor obtain an abortion if the parental-involvement laws of the State were circumvented.

Now, transport is not defined in the bill. But it obviously includes taxicabs, buses, ambulance drivers and others that may transport a minor across State lines to get an abortion or return from an abortion under the bill. And it makes them criminals for the simple task of doing their job, transporting someone between two places.

Now, the bill also makes conspiracy and accessory after the fact criminal violations, so a nurse or receptionist or sorority sister who calls the cab could also be prosecuted for the Federal crime.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced the amendment, which says that the prohibitions of this section do not apply with respect to the conduct of taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers or others in the business of professional transport.

Now, even if a prosecutor uses commonsense prosecutorial discretion and does not prosecute a cab driver or a sorority sister in this situation, there are other problems with the bill, because a technical violation of the bill, such as one committed by the taxicab driver, automatically exposes that taxicab driver or the sorority sister who calls the cab, did not even go on the trip, to civil liability. That means that the parents can sue them for what they did.

The civil liability provisions of the bill create a blanket Federal cause of action for a parent that suffers ``legal harm,'' compounding the massive intimidation effects of the bill. Based on the language of the bill, the cab driver, receptionist, sorority sister could be held civilly liable for helping to provide safe and legal transportation assistance to the minor.

Moreover, based on the agency principles, not only is the cab driver exposed to civil liability, but the entire cab company is similarly exposed.

Now, you may say that the cab driver probably did not know. But what happens when the passenger gets into the cab and says, take me to the abortion clinic which happens to be across State lines. And during the trip, he hears the minor discuss with a friend where she is going and why. It becomes clear what the deal is.

Now, in prior discussions with the amendment, it has been suggested that the bill will immunize someone who may be a taxicab driver and also a sexual predator.

Let us not insult each other. If someone is a sexual predator, and the prosecutor evidence of that, this will be the last code section that they will be looking at because these are misdemeanors. The code is full of felonies for sexual predators.

And so if the parent finds out that the minor went across State lines by taxicab and gets mad, and the child has to explain what happened, how they got to the clinic, and what was said in the cab, obviously, the parent can sue the cab driver.

Now, an overwhelming portion of minors already discuss the situation with their parents. This will not reduce teen pregnancy. This will not increase the number of children that discuss the situation with their parents. This will make no exceptions for dysfunctional families. It will just make criminals out of friends and relatives and allow the parents to sue them.

I just do not think, Mr. Chairman, that the taxicab drivers ought to get caught up in that controversy and that is why I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my team.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me read the operative language of the bill. ``Whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion,'' clearly covers a taxicab driver who knows where he is going and has heard the discussion behind him.

I just do not think the bill ought to apply to the taxicab driver. If the others do not think it applies, then just pass the amendment. I think it is a commonsense amendment. The taxicab driver ought not get caught up into an interfamily dispute over who did what and he get sued and the cab company get sued because he did not know it was illegal to take the fare to the nearest abortion clinic which happened to be across the State line.

The taxicab driver could clearly know and he could hear the discussion about where they were going and why. That would make him guilty, the taxicab company guilty, the sorority sister that called the taxicab guilty for conspiracy.

This is a commonsense amendment. I do not think the taxicab driver ought to be part of this discussion, ought not be sued by a mad parent, and I hope we will adopt the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I also wanted to point out that at the end of the last debate the chairman of the committee suggested that there needs to be a criminal intent for the evasion of the parental consent laws, but we do not need intent for that. If, in fact, you have circumvented the parental consent laws, then there is a violation. You do not even have to know you violated them if, in fact, you did; and I think the chairman would acknowledge that.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to follow up on this briefly because we talked about fiscal responsibility and irresponsibility. And we have seen this chart. In 1993 we passed budgets that were very controversial. But they had the effect of eliminating the deficit and sending it up into surplus. And these were controversial, and those votes were used against the Democrats.

Right after these votes were cast, when we eliminated the trend line going down into further and further deficit and started going up, we had PAYGO in effect, where if you had a tax cut, you had to pay for the tax cut. If you had a spending increase, you had to pay for it with either more taxes or less spending somewhere else. You just could not spend without paying for it. You could not cut taxes without paying for it. And we ended up in a surplus at the end of 2000. We let PAYGO expire so you could pass massive tax cuts and increase spending all you wanted without paying for it. And that kind of fiscal irresponsibility puts us down here to $427 billion in the hole.

Now, it is going to get worse before it gets better. The President suggests in the rhetoric that he is going to cut the deficit in half in 5 years, which is actually somewhat modest. That means he is only going to clean up half the mess he caused. He is not even going to clean up just half. He is going to promise to clean up half.

But this green line down here shows if you actually include what we know must be included, there is no way you are going to even come close. It is just going to get worse and worse.

This blue line is an interesting line because this is the budget projection. All the surpluses of 300 billion-plus was the projection made in 2002, which is an interesting year, because it is after 2001. After 9/11 we still thought we could have surpluses, but we continued to cut taxes, we continued to increase spending without any limit.

Now, we have heard about the priorities that we are going to be missing. We have heard about education. We have heard about health care. We have heard about all of the things we cannot do. One of the things we cannot do, I live in Newport News, Virginia. We build aircraft carriers. Because of the budget crunch, they are talking about reducing the number of aircraft carriers.

We have a NASA research facility near my district, aeronautics research. We are scrambling to try to find a couple $100 million so that NASA Langley can have a few million dollars to continue the research that we are doing. We are having trouble finding that money. We hope we can find it.

But just last week, we passed another tax cut. When fully phased in, it would be another $70 billion a year. Without paying for it. Just passed it.

One priority we have, all of us here, Social Security. If you look at all of the tax cuts, you know, where are we going to find the money for Social Security to keep the plan we have got now, all of the tax cuts under this administration passed, and if we make them permanent, $14 trillion. Social Security only has a 3.7 to $4 trillion shortfall. If you add on Medicare, you could have solved both of those, or you can have tax cuts. And to add insult to injury, make the tax cuts permanent. That is over $11 trillion in present value cost. Social Security, 3.7. Make the tax cuts permanent for the top 1 percent, those making more than $350,000 a year. That is almost enough in itself to solve the Social Security problem that we have.

Matter of priorities. Are we going to give tax cuts to the top 1 percent, or are we going to save Social Security for everybody? Well, we are going to be voting on that. We have already passed estate tax repeal. We have got others. I believe that we ought to save Social Security first. If you are going to have an $11 trillion tax cut plan on the table, well, let us just take the first 4 trillion and solve Social Security. Then maybe we can only cut taxes $7 trillion. But we would have saved Social Security. Let us save Social Security first. We have got a good plan. All of the benefits being promised we cannot pay right now. We are 4 trillion short. It is actually better than the President's plan because his plan goes broke quicker and cuts benefits in the process. So that ought to be a nonstarter.

But we have priorities and because of our fiscal irresponsibility, we cannot meet those priorities. If we go back to the fiscal responsibility we had from 1993 to 2000, you had to pay for your new initiatives. You could not just pass a tax cut, and where a President would veto bills that were fiscally irresponsible, even if he had to shut down the government. In 1995 we shut down the government rather than President Clinton signing those bills that would have put us back in the ditch where we were. Now, that is the kind of leadership we need now. We do not have it.

And if the gentleman looks at the chart right beside him, where you pass these tax cuts that look a little modest for the next couple of years, but when you reveal the full 10-year and the next 10-year cost, you know they are fiscally irresponsible. We cannot afford them, and that is why Social Security is in jeopardy today.

Will the gentleman yield?

When the budget left the House, what did it do to things likes Medicaid?

Did they direct the Education and Workforce Committee to cut mandatory spending?

And if you cut mandatory spending and the education budget, the only thing you have for school lunches and student loans, that is the only thing you can cut under that program.

The gentleman mentioned 9/11. It seems to me that it is fair to have been surprised in September of 2001 or maybe later that you suffered 9/11. Does the gentleman find it surprising that people still appear to be surprised that 9/11 happened here, 4 years later, that we are budgeting as if it did not happen? And surprise, after you pass the budget, oh, we forgot about 9/11?

Let me ask one more question. The gentlemen mentions interest on the national debt. I remember in 2001 when this administration came in, when Chairman Greenspan was testifying, the questions he had to answer were along the lines of should we pay off the whole national debt or should we pay off just the short-term debt or the long-term debt? What will happen to the interest rates when you pay off the national debt?

Were the projections not at the beginning of 2001 when this administration came in that we could pay all the debt held by the public, we could pay it off by 2008, and by 2013, 2015, we could have put all the money back into the trust funds that we borrowed from like Social Security?

Would the gentleman remind us what the 10-year surplus was projected to be at the beginning of this administration?

For those same 10 years, what is the projected surplus to be now?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the entire take of the individual income tax, is that not about $800 billion?

And we have an average of $900 billion overspending from what was projected every year for the 10-year period?

Does the gentleman have a chart that shows what the surpluses were supposed to be and what the annual deficits look like?

Now, Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman show me where Social Security and Medicare present surpluses are on that chart?

So that means we spend the Social Security plus, and then spend even more than that after we have spent the surplus?

In the final years of the Clinton administration we had the Social Security and Medicare surplus and we were talking about a lockbox where that would be put to save Social Security and Medicare without spending it; is that right?

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 28, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, while some who file bankruptcy have been financially irresponsible, the overwhelming majority of those who file do so as a result of divorce, major illness, or job loss. Half of those who go into bankruptcy do so because of illness, and most of them had health insurance but still could not pay their bills.

If the purpose of the legislation is to try to deal with those who abuse credit, we ought to be able to distinguish them from the hard- working Americans who unfortunately become ill, those who have an unforeseen loss of a job, or whose spouses desert them after a business failure.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to those who get sick or lose their job, this bill will also hurt small business entrepreneurs. They go into business and consider a risk-benefit ratio that includes the possibility of making a lot of money, but also includes the possibility of losing everything and ending up in bankruptcy. With the passage of this legislation, those entrepreneurs and their families will risk not only losing everything but also being denied a fresh start if the business goes under. They will be stripped down to essentials like food and rent for 5 years, and that is average rent for the area, not what they may have been living in.

Finally, we ought to consider the impact on society of increasing the number of people who conclude that they have nothing to lose. It is ironic that the last time we debated bankruptcy reform on the floor of the House, a farmer had driven his tractor into the pond near the Washington Monument, tying up traffic for a long time. He was quoted as saying, ``I am broke. I am busted. I have the rest of my life to stay here.''

People who feel they have nothing to lose can become dangerous to society. Denying bankruptcy protection to people who need a fresh start will only increase the number of people in our community who feel they have nothing to lose.

This legislation does not differentiate between those who abuse the system and those who deserve a fresh start. This rule does not allow amendments to fix the bill; and, therefore, the rule should be defeated.

I would like to respond very quickly. If medical expenses wipe you out and you cannot pay them, under this bill you cannot get into chapter 7 if you can pay $166 a month on your bills, however much they are. There could be hundreds of thousands of dollars that you could never pay.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman suggested was, if someone has overwhelming medical bills, hundreds of thousands in medical bills, that they can file under Chapter 7. That is not true. If they have a job and they have $100 a month left over after essential expenses, they are going to have to go under a wage earner plan for the next 5 years. Every dime they have got after food and rent will go to all of their bills. They cannot file under Chapter 7.

Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, Representative Eric Cantor, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Virginia Union University Panthers men's basketball team had a remarkable season and we believe the Panthers deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On March 26, 2005, the Virginia Union University Panthers won the NCAA Division II Men's Basketball National Championship. The Panthers completed their 2005 season with an impressive 30-4 record.

To quote from Virginia Union's hometown newspaper, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, ``Those [Virginia Union's] starters, none over

6-6 or heavier than 223 pounds, carried the Panthers all year past bigger, stronger opponents. . . . It is perhaps the most belabored sports cliche, but when the Panthers looked at each other, they saw a whole greater than the sum of its parts.''

En route to their championship victory in Grand Forks, North Dakota, the Panthers won their second straight CIAA Championship on Saturday, March 5, 2005. Their remarkable season carries on the tradition of championship basketball at Virginia Union, which now has 15 CIAA Championships and three National Championships.

Founded in 1865, Virginia Union University is an Historically Black University dedicated to providing educational equity to African- Americans. Virginia Union welcomes diversity among its faculty and staff as well as its student body. In its founding days, Virginia Union's academic missions and social visions were ahead of their time. Now, more than a century later, Virginia Union University is still an innovating and inspiring place for college students and scholar athletes.

My colleague Eric Cantor and I would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to the Virginia Union University players and their families, Coach Robbins and the rest of his coaching staff, Virginia Union alumni, and the entire Virginia Union community for their remarkable accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Woodside High School Wolverines boy's basketball team had a remarkable season and we believe the Wolverines deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On March 12, 2005, Woodside won its second consecutive Group AAA Boy's Basketball State Championship at the Virginia Commonwealth University Siegel Center in Richmond. The Wolverines completed the 2005 season with a truly impressive record of 30-2.

Established in 1996, Woodside High School is a magnet school specializing in the performing arts. Students must meet rigorous academic requirements, take responsibility for academic progress, behavior and attendance, and they are expected to participate in school and community activities. The Woodside drive for excellence has now been extended into the field of athletics.

With their 2004 and 2005 championship seasons, Woodside has established a new tradition of championship basketball in Newport News. This year the Wolverines were Peninsula District Season and Tournament Champions, and the Eastern Region Champion. Two-time Coach of the Year, John Richardson, has compiled a 59-5 record over the last two years. The Virginia High School Coaches Association also awarded Player of the Year honors to Woodside senior guard, Calvin Baker.

My colleague Jo Ann Davis and I would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to the Woodside High School players and their families, Coach Richardson and the rest of his coaching staff, Woodside High alumni, and the entire Woodside High community for their remarkable accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to call attention to a group of young students from Surry County, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Surry High School Cougars boys' basketball team had a remarkable season and I believe the Cougars deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On March 12, 2005, the Cougars won their first Group A Boys' Basketball State Championship at the Virginia Commonwealth University Siegel Center in Richmond. Surry completed its 2005 season with a truly impressive record of 26-4.

The Cougars have dedicated this year's championship run to their Head Coach, Joe Ellis. Mr. Ellis was diagnosed with colon and stomach cancer twenty months ago. Despite his diagnosis and subsequent chemotherapy treatments, Mr. Ellis has continued to coach the Cougars, missing only one game during their championship season. His dedication and commitment to the team have given his players a model of how to face adversity both on the basketball court and in life.

Along with the State Championship, the Cougars won this year's Tri- Rivers District Tournament and the Region A Tournament. Coach Ellis was awarded Coach of the Year by the Virginia High School Coaches Association. Junior center Edward Barham was also honored as Player of the Year.

I want to extend my enthusiastic congratulations for a job well done to Coach Ellis and the Surry High School Cougars--the 2005 Group A Virginia High School League Boys' Basketball State Champions.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the details of this case. I just want to say a word about the process, because we should honor and respect the rule of law, and laws should be applied equally to all.

This is a special bill, special treatment to just one case. This bill does not grant a Federal right of review to cases like this. This bill applies just to this one case.

The majority in Congress apparently has already decided the proper outcome of the case, a decision different from the next of kin and State court judges who have heard evidence from both sides.

Present law has a process to ascertain whether or not a patient is in a persistent vegetative state, and it should not matter what politicians think. There is a process. But this case will be given special treatment because Members of Congress have made a different diagnosis. Present law also places the decisions in the hands of the next of kin, the husband. But Congress apparently does not agree with the next of kin; and this bill, therefore, gives special legal standing to other relatives.

This is not the only recent example of special treatment. A few years ago, a child custody case in the Washington, D.C. area was decided by special legislative language in a transportation appropriations bill. The Committee on Education and the Workforce considering a case on appeal between the Department of Labor and a bank retroactively changed the law to fix the result on behalf of the bank. The House passed legislation to fix a result in firearms liability legislation so that the National Rifle Association got to try the issue in the legislative branch after they had made contributions to legislators who will decide the result, rather than being relegated to the impartial judge and jury where ordinary citizens have to try their cases.

Mr. Speaker, we should honor the rule of law and apply that law in all cases. There are cases like this all over the country, but this bill applies only to this case because the relatives were able to get the attention of the United States Congress.

If Congress wants to establish a Federal right of review in cases like this, a new rule of law, so be it; but that law should apply to all whether or not they have a Member of Congress to introduce a special bill. Let us honor and respect the rule of law to be applied equally to all and reject this legislation.