Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 82 is a bipartisan measure and will help raise awareness of the terrible toll that stalking is taking in our society. Every year, stalking affects millions of Americans of both genders and of all races and ages. The consequences of stalking can be extremely serious. The fear and mental anguish can leave stalking victims paralyzed. Stalkers cause their victims severe emotional distress, including anxiety, insomnia, social dysfunction and depression, which can affect all aspects of life, including family, social activities and work. In fact, many stalking victims have been forced to relocate their residences and also frequently needed psychological counseling. Approximately 130,000 victims reported being fired or forced to find work elsewhere because they've been stalked. Stalking also leads to physical attacks on the victim. This explains why most States and the Federal Government treats stalking as a felony. Over 75 percent of women murdered by an intimate partner have been stalked by that partner. Advances in technology have given stalkers ever-increasing access to their victim's personal information, making the victim even more vulnerable. I'd like to commend my Judiciary Committee colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 82. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2009 has bipartisan support, and I appreciate the gentleman from Texas stating that support. And I would also like to remind people, as the other side has, that we're going to have to come up with funds to do the research to make best use of the statistics that we gather. There are essentially two totally different economic theories in place that we're consideration. One was in place for 8 years beginning in 1993, and the other was in place from 2001 till last year. The Democratic theory that passed without a Republican vote in either the House or the Senate created 8 years where we eliminated the entire deficit. If we hadn't messed up the budget, we would have, in 10 years, run up a $5.5 trillion surplus, more than enough to pay Social Security for 75 years without reducing benefits. We had created tens of millions of jobs, median income was up over $7,000, the Dow Jones Industrial Average more than tripled. I think that was a good result. We also have the Republican theory of economics that was in place beginning in 2001 that passed with the Republican House and Republican Senate and the Republican President. As a direct result of that plan, we had the worst job performance since the Great Depression; the Dow Jones Industrial Average didn't triple, it went down; median income went down, and we ran up the national debt so much that it's almost doubled in the last 8 years rather than being eliminated as it would have been had the Democratic plan continued without getting messed up. The stimulus that's been disparaged is necessary to try to dig us out of the mess that we're in. We all regret the fact that we need a stimulus, but had we not had the mess that we're in, we wouldn't have needed the stimulus. And so, Madam Speaker, I close in support of the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2009. It will continue the reporting that we've had and make best use of the statistics so that we can reduce these preventible deaths in the custody of law enforcement officers.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I will be prepared to close when the gentleman from Texas has yielded back his time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 738 will strengthen the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000, a law which encourages constructive oversight of the conduct, of the arrests, of imprisonment, and of other forms of detention in our Nation's prisons and jails. If we are to have meaningful oversight, we have to at least know how many people are dying in our jails and prisons. The Death in Custody Act simply requires States and localities to simply report the fact that a death occurred and a brief description of what happened. The bill reinforces the 2000 act's reporting requirements by authorizing the Attorney General to withhold a portion of the State's Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants if it is not in compliance with those requirements. It will help improve oversight in two other additional ways. First, it applies the reporting requirements to Federal law enforcement authorities as well as States. As a result, Congress will have information for the entire incarcerated population in the United States, not just the State systems. Second, H.R. 738 directs the Attorney General to examine data collected by the Bureau of Justice since the original act became effective to identify what practices are most effective in lowering the death rate in our Nation's prisons and jails. For example, the bureau reported in August of 2005 that there had been a 64 percent decline in suicides in custody and a 93 percent decline in homicides in custody since 1980. The Attorney General's study should provide Congress with useful guidance on why the death rate was reduced, and what we can do to continue to lower it. Like the original Death In Custody Reporting Act of 2000, the bill enjoys broad bipartisan support. Statistics collected under the original act demonstrate that it can be exceptionally successful because those administering prisons and jails know that they will have to report each death in their custody and they may be held accountable for those deaths. And this bill not only continues the program but strengthens it. And I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 738) to encourage States to report to the Attorney General certain information regarding the deaths of individuals in the custody of law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the other side for their support of the underlying bill and for their comments that give rise to the challenge we may have in actually funding the legislation. Sixteen years ago, we had a Democratic majority, and we passed a budget and an economic plan. It passed without a single Republican vote--not one in the House, not one in the Senate. It was signed by President Clinton. In 8 years, we eliminated the debt. As a matter of fact, at the end of the 8 years, when Chairman Greenspan was testifying before Congress, the questions he was asked were questions like: What will happen when we pay off the national debt? What will happen to the bond market? What will happen to interest rates when we pay off the national debt? It was anticipated that year that we were to clear up all of the debt held by the public. The median income went up about $7,000. Tens of millions of jobs were created. The Dow Jones industrial average more than tripled. Then in 2001, the Republican plan was adopted--the Republicans who have been lecturing on for the last few minutes about the economy. As a direct result of their plan, we had the worst job performance since the Great Depression. The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not triple. It went down. The median income actually went down. We did not pay off the national debt. We almost doubled the national debt. We are now in a situation where we have to dig ourselves out of that mess. Everyone regrets the necessity of having to have a huge stimulus plan to get us out of the mess, but that is what we have had to do. We would like to listen to the other side and to their ideas, but unfortunately, as a result of recent history, we know where those ideas will put us. So we have a stimulus plan. Hopefully, it will get us out of the mess we are in so that we will have the funds to fund the CAMPUS Safety Act of 2009. I would hope that the House would support the bill and would support the authorization. Then the next job we will do will be to actually fund it in order to get us out of the economic mess that we are in.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman has concluded and will yield back.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I reserve my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman has other speakers.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, over the past few years we have seen a number of tragic incidents of violence at colleges and universities, including the disastrous events at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. Therefore, we have introduced the Center to Advance, Monitor and Preserve University Security Safety Act of 2009, or the CAMPUS Safety Act of 2009. This bill will help schools to more effectively prevent such incidents, and to more effectively respond if such events do occur. It creates a National Center of Campus Public Safety, a program to be administered through the Department of Justice. The center will train campus safety agencies, promote research in improving campus safety, and be a clearinghouse for campus safety information. The director of the center will have authority to award grants to institutions of higher learning to help them meet their enhanced public safety goals. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Gohmert, for his support of this important bipartisan measure. I urge colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 748) to establish and operate a National Center for Campus Public Safety.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Center to Advance, Monitor and Preserve University Security (``CAMPUS'') Safety Act of 2009. The purpose of this legislation is to enable our institutions of higher education to easily obtain the best information available on how to keep our campuses safe and how to respond in the event of a campus emergency. The bill creates a National Center for Campus Public Safety (``Center''), which will be administered through Department of Justice. The Center is designed to train campus public safety agencies in state of the art practices to assure campus safety, encourage research to strengthen college safety and security, and serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of relevant campus public safety information. The Director of the Center will have authority to award grants to institutions of higher learning to help them meet their enhanced public safety goals. Over the past few years we have seen numerous tragedies occur at colleges and universities, including the disastrous events that occurred at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. Unfortunately, because these events were the first of their kind for the schools, the Administrators were not fully knowledgeable on the best practices to prevent the tragedies and how to respond in the aftermath. We therefore must assist our institutions of higher learning to keep campuses safe. The CAMPUS Safety Act will help institutions of higher learning understand how to prevent such tragedies from occurring, and how to respond in case they do. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation to ensure that the institutions of higher education have access to information on how to keep their schools safe.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation reverses the Supreme Court's decision in the Ledbetter case in which the Court ruled that workers filing suit for pay discrimination must do so within 180 days of the original decision to discriminate against them. After the 180 days from the initial decision to discriminate, the employer could continue its discriminatory practices and the employee would no longer have any legal remedy. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, employees could file suit against employers who were guilty of discriminatory pay practices within 180 days of any discriminatory act, not just the initial decision to discriminate, so that each paycheck in which women were paid less than men for performing the same job would restart the 180- day period. The Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter changed this, so that now, if the discrimination is not discovered within 180 days, employers are now allowed to continue to discriminate, even if the pattern of discrimination is well known and acknowledged. Unfortunately, the fact is that many women, like Lilly Ledbetter, do not learn about the discrimination until much later. So under the Supreme Court decision these women have no remedy under civil rights laws. This bill corrects the injustice and does so, it does not make a so-called dramatic change. Most of the country operated under this policy anyway. And also, the bill retains the 2-year limit on past wages, so the burden of proof remains also on the plaintiff. So any delay which erodes evidence would be a higher burden for the plaintiff. So there's no incentive to delay bringing suit. Madam Speaker, this is a commonsense application of what everyone thought the law was anyway. I commend Chairman Miller for bringing the bill to the floor, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself, Congresswoman Thelma Drake and Congressman Rob Wittman to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Phoebus High School Phantoms football team had a remarkable 2008 season. On December 6, the Phoebus High School Phantoms won their 4th state football championship this decade, defeating Dinwiddie High School of Dinwiddie 37-13, at Lane Stadium in Blacksburg, Virginia. The Phantoms finished the season with a 15-0 record. Phoebus never trailed in a game this season, and scored 720 points while allowing 53. This latest championship is just another accolade for the City of Hampton's youngest school, founded in 1975. The football team, under Coach Bill Dee has won the State Football Championship three previous times: 2001, 2002, and 2006. Phoebus High's legacy of excellence is not limited to just the field of athletics. Under the Direction of Principal Robert Johnson, the Phoebus faculty seeks to inspire students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities and in their communities. Phoebus has two innovative programs that expand the learning experience outside of the traditional classroom. Phoebus hosts the Hampton School Division's Center for High Technology. This magnet career academy includes classes in pre-engineering, design and drafting, and Cisco network administration, preparing students for college classes and jobs in the technology sector. Phoebus is also home to the Blue Phantom Inn. This student-run restaurant gives students an opportunity to develop their culinary arts skills, and was nationally recognized in Southern Living magazine. The Phantoms' excellence in football is also characteristic of the quality of athletics in the Peninsula District of Virginia. Phoebus High School's championship this year marked the 12th time in the last fifteen years that a Peninsula District team has won a state title in football. To quote from our hometown newspaper, the Daily Press, ``High school football on the Peninsula is championship football.'' We would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Bill Dee, his coaching staff and all of the players on the Phoebus High School Phantoms, the 2008 Group AAA Division 5 Virginia High School League state football champions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, we obviously have a crisis in the financial markets. Major firms have failed and others are failing. We are in an economic downturn with people losing their homes, businesses going under, and credit drying up for small businesses and consumers. The current crisis is the predictable consequence of the failed economic policies of the last 8 years. These policies are the ones that have produced record budget deficits, the worst job growth since the Great Depression--including our ninth consecutive month of job losses--and the worst Dow performance in over three decades. Congress should address the crisis with appropriate legislation. The Senate bill that we considered today is not fundamentally different from the bill we voted on Monday, although some have attempted to change the name of the package from a ``bailout'' to a ``rescue.'' The foundation of the bill remained the outlay of $700 billion for the purchase of worthless assets. On balance, the final version of the bill was still not a good deal for taxpayers. Whether or not the bailout act we voted on today was a ``good'' deal rises and falls on the issue of fair value. You cannot rationally determine the worthiness of a purchase, without first assessing what the fair value is, and whether you are paying more or less than that fair value. If the bailout legislation included a provision that would provide that the Federal Government would pay no more than the good faith estimate of the fair value for the assets, then it would be a good deal. Some of the assets we will be asked to buy are options, derivatives, and other exotic speculative investments that are in fact worthless. There is no public policy rationale to bail investors out of speculative securities that did not pay off. Since there is no commitment to calculating a good faith fair value price, and to paying no more than that price, this is a bad deal for the American people, because we will undoubtedly overpay for these assets. Therefore, the worthiness of the deal rises or falls on the commitment to limit payments to a fair value. I am not suggesting that establishing a fair value of these assets will be easy. But there are well established factors in other situations to determine the value of assets when selling prices or bid and asked prices are not available. And it is our obligation as protectors of the U.S. Treasury to require that no funds should be spent without a reasonable assessment of what we are buying. Furthermore we should not give unlimited discretion to buy assets at prices obviously higher than fair value to an administration frequently accused of cronyism and favoritism. We are dealing with three separate but inter-related problems: illiquidity in the credit market; insolvency of some financial institutions; and the hardship of homeowners. Offering fair value prices for assets will address the issue of liquidity. If we limited purchasing prices to fair value, we could purchase assets, reestablish confidence, wait for the markets to reinvigorate and the private sector could then buy assets back from the Government. Even if it took more than $700 billion, as long as we were paying fair value, and receiving assets earning more than our borrowing costs, we could be confident that, in the long run, this solution would at least break even, and would likely make money for the taxpayer even if we held the assets to maturity. But since the bill provides no limit on the price we pay for assets, we will undoubtedly overpay, and lose money on the deal. If we paid fair value, we could solve the liquidity crisis without any likely cost to the taxpayers. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the act to restrict payments for assets to their fair value. The problem with illiquidity which affects credit relates to lending institutions holding valuable but temporarily illiquid assets on their books. While there is no market for those assets, accounting regulators require the assets to be valued at virtually zero. Since lending authority is directly related to the institution's capital, this markdown significantly reduces lending authority, which leads to the credit crunch. This problem can be solved either by the government purchasing the assets at fair value or by a change in accounting regulations to allow assets to be booked at ``fair economic value'' rather than ``market value''. This administrative change in the ``mark to market'' rule would significantly increase lending authority at no cost to the taxpayer. In addition there are a handful of banks that have sufficient capital but not enough deposits to sustain lending authority; in those few cases, simply depositing federal funds in the bank would increase lending capacity. Another factor affecting credit is the reluctance that banks have to lend money to other banks; for fear that the other bank might go broke without notice as several recently have done. This problem can be cured by the issuance of ``net worth certificates'' which would guarantee the net worth of a bank, for a fee which would insure that there would be no net cost to the taxpayer. This has been done successfully in the past. There are other ways to instill confidence in financial institutions without spending any of the taxpayer's money. William Isaac, former head of the FDIC, has suggested that FDIC exercise the powers already granted to it by Congress. The FDIC can take emergency action and declare that no general creditor of a failed bank will suffer a loss if the bank fails. That declaration, when coming from the FDIC would, by statute, be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. This action would be a signal to the worldwide market that the full faith and credit of the United States stands behind our banks, and an influx of capital would soon follow. Another FDIC change would be to increase the limit at which FDIC insures deposits from $100,000 to $250,000. This would limit the destabilizing impact of major withdrawals from banks. This provision is not controversial and is actually in the bill. Another factor which affects capital and therefore lending authority is the downward pressure on stock prices caused by short selling. Administrative action has already been taken to prohibit ``naked short sales'' and to restore the ``uptick'' rules. After the bill was defeated on Monday, I worked with other members who were skeptical of the bill, to propose cost-effective solutions to the crisis. Representative Peter DeFazio has produced a bill, the No BAILOUTS, Bringing Accounting, Increased Liquidity, Oversight and Upholding Taxpayer Security Act, that outlines administrative changes that could be implemented at no cost to the taxpayer. The bill directs the administration to implement a net worth certificates program, adjust mark to market valuation rules, increase FDIC insurance limits, and regulate short sales. These no-cost changes would be more likely to have an impact on the domestic credit crunch than spending $700 billion purchasing worthless assets from all over the world. Some argue that overpaying for assets will help solve the second problem of the crisis, the insolvency of some financial institutions, by providing capital to these institutions. I believe that we should help financially troubled companies that have a good chance of stabilizing and coming back with our help. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to stop companies in no distress, or companies that are hopelessly insolvent, from selling their toxic assets to the Government, and any overpayment for assets those companies sell will provide no value to the taxpayer. There are more efficient ways of targeting financial assistance to appropriate companies than making overpayments to all companies. Congress does have an interest in assisting homeowners, but homeowners struggling to pay mortgages will find little comfort in this legislation. We should have included meaningful assistance for struggling homeowners in the bill. All homeowners would benefit because homeowners who are paying their mortgages on time have been hurt by home prices collapsing because of the flurry of foreclosures, and perspective homeowners are having difficulty finding new mortgages. The bill directs the Treasury Secretary to implement a plan to decrease foreclosures, ``to the extent that the Secretary acquires mortgages''. The problem is that the toxic securities that the Treasury is being asked to buy are not individual mortgages, but options, derivatives and other securities comprised of portions of hundreds and sometimes thousands of different individual mortgages. It is therefore unlikely that the Secretary will have the authority to change the mortgage terms and help prevent foreclosure in any significant number of actual mortgages. There are many effective ways to actually help homeowners. In November 2007, Representative Joe Baca introduced H.R. 4135, the Family Foreclosure Rescue Corporation, FFRC. Representative Baca's bill is based on the concept of the Home Owner's Loan Corporation, HOLC. During the Great Depression, this Government entity was created to buy troubled mortgages, and then refinance the mortgages at rates the homeowners could afford, preventing more foreclosures and stabilizing housing prices. When HOLC ended operations in 1951, it had turned a profit to the taxpayer. H.R. 4135 would create the Family Foreclosure Rescue Corporation, FFRC, to refinance loans for people currently in foreclosure or in serious default. Families will be able to refinance their mortgage through a Government administered loan with a set interest rate. FFRC would assist homeowners paying on the mortgages that back many of the toxic assets the Treasury is being asked to buy. Providing stability in the mortgage market is a much more direct solution to the foreclosure problem than overpaying for worthless options and derivatives backed by the bad mortgages, and this strategy is much more likely to help struggling homeowners. The HOPE for Homeowners program, a Federal program established by the housing bill passed earlier this year, is another program designed to directly assist homeowners, and Congress could do more to encourage mortgage holders assist their mortgage payers and themselves by utilizing the program. Changes to bankruptcy rules that would allow homeowners to renegotiate the loan on their primary residence would be another provision that would help homeowners. Although the major assessment of the core provisions of the bill rises and falls on the issues of fair price valuation and actual assistance to homeowners, there are other issues addressed in the legislation. The media has reported that there are provisions in this bill to limit executive compensation and to protect the taxpayer. The actual language in this bill does not support these reports. There are huge loopholes in the bill that allow companies to continue to pay executives exorbitant salaries. And, the taxpayer protections in the bill are flimsy. If the bailout does not pay for itself, the bill leaves it to a future administration to propose a bill to tax financial institutions to raise the money taxpayers have lost. In a Congress where there is outrage against any new tax proposal, if there is no political will to pay for the bailout in the middle of the crisis, there will be even less political will to raise taxes on financial institutions that may still be struggling in the future. The failure of the bill to limit the purchase of any assets to the fair value of those assets means that the bill will not effectively address the underlying issues: purchasing worthless assets adds nothing to general liquidity; overpaying for assets from all companies is an inefficient way to help those companies who only need temporary assistance to survive; and overpaying for assets does nothing for homeowners. Furthermore, this bill will fail to instill confidence in the market when it becomes apparent that the language of the bill is unlikely to match the public description of the bill on CEO compensation, foreclosure prevention and protection of the taxpayer. For those reasons, I regret that I was unable to support the bill. We should have drafted a new bill with the inclusion of many of the alternative proposals I have laid out in this statement. The result would have been a comprehensive bipartisan bill which targets our Federal assistance to the goals we need to address: illiquidity in the market, solvency for appropriate businesses, and assistance to homeowners. By spending $700 billion ineffectively on this crisis now, we will not have funds to respond to the next phase of our financial crisis in the future. For example, homeowners are continuing to lose their homes, and we have done very little to stem the tide of that problem. And because of today's vote, we will have fewer resources to address that problem in the future. Furthermore, we must not forget that the underlying problem is that we are in an economic downturn, and our actions must be deliberate and measured if we are going to steer our way out of this mess. Unfortunately, we now have $700 billion less to address our economic situation. There are many administration initiatives that require virtually no taxpayer money, which would have a huge impact on the banking crisis, the solvency of businesses, and the challenges of homeowners. We should have begun with proposing those no cost administrative changes, before we authorized the expenditure of $700 billion on a plan unlikely to make any difference at all.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Thursday, October 2, 2008.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to suspend the rules relating to the following measures be considered as adopted in the form considered by the House on Saturday, September 27, 2008: House Resolution 1224, H.R. 4131, H.R. 6600, H.R. 6669, S. 3536, S. 3598, S. 3296, and S. 2304.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``H.R. 3013, the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2008.'' This legislation would have reversed an ever changing DOJ policy on privileged material. I sponsored this bill because I believe DOJ's prior policy allowed prosecutors to overreach in forcing organizations and their employees to waive the protections of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. On August 28, 2008, Deputy United States Attorney General Mark R. Filip announced a new policy that adopted much of the substance of H.R. 3013. I applaud DOJ's effort, and see it as a clear and substantive improvement over the previous policy, in many respects. However, I believe legislation is still needed for at least three reasons. First, the new DOJ policy does not cover other federal agencies and many still have policies that undermine these important protections. A list of some of those agencies and their policies is attached to this statement. Second, agency policies on protections to the attorney-client privilege, including the Deputy Attorney General's new policy, do not have the effect of law. Defendants are advised in the new DOJ policy to complain to a prosecutor's supervisor when a prosecutor has violated DOJ policy. It is unrealistic, to say the least, to think that defendants are going to complain to the supervisor of a prosecutor who is determining whether to indict the organization because of the actions of one or more of its employees. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, public policy in this area should not be subject to the whims of every new administration. Deputy Attorney General Fillip's new policy is DOJ's fifth attempt in 10 years to settle this matter. Given the desire by some Members to give this new DOJ policy a chance to play out, it appears that legislation may not pass in the Congress this year. However, I call on all federal agencies to change their policies to come into line with H.R. 3013 as soon as possible. If legislation fails to pass in this Congress, I intend to reintroduce legislation in the next Congress. I also plan to hold a hearing in the next Congress to examine the issues of attorney-client privilege waiver and employee due process rights in federal investigations, to determine what if any real change has occurred in DOJ's actions under its new policy, and to determine whether other Federal agencies have appropriately revised their policies. Department of Justice. Securities and Exchange Commission (ac privilege, work product, employee legal rights). Department of Housing and Urban Development (ac privilege, work product, employee legal rights). Environmental Protection Agency (ac privilege and work product only). General Services Administration/Civilian Agency Acquisition Council/Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (ac privilege and work product only; waiver demand is not explicit, but rather is implied as part of its proposed FAR rule dealing with ``Contractor Compliance Program and Integrity Reporting''). Commodity Futures Trading Commission (employee legal rights only; it reversed its ac privilege and work product policies at our request).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, access to quality, affordable health care is critical to the well being of our citizens. With 46 million uninsured, including 9 million children, and many more underinsured, we must focus on strengthening our existing system as we continue to work to assure that quality health care is available to all. The Patient Advocate Act will assist patients, particularly those with a chronic illness, in successfully meeting the challenges brought on by their illness. Patients battling a life-threatening illness are generally ill- equipped to negotiate with insurance companies, hospitals and other medical providers. Advocates will be available to assist with job retention and other debt crisis matters, while the patients are dealing with the reality of their illness at the same time. The limited network of existing patient advocate programs have proven their value and cost effectiveness. It is in the best interest of the patient to have someone available to advocate on their behalf while suffering from chronic illness. Madam Speaker, the Patient Advocate Act would establish a demonstration grant program for State, local, tribal and non-profit entities to develop and operate patient advocate programs. The programs will assist patients in resolving health insurance, job retention, debt crisis and other problems related to the patients' diagnosis and illness. Specific services include negotiating pre-authorization claims, expediting the appeals process on contested claims, resolving billing errors and other bill issues, resolving debt crises, brokering resources to supplement limits to insurance, gaining access to services for the uninsured, and addressing other problems related to the patient's illness, at no cost to the patient. The grants will be made available to existing and new patient advocacy programs. Madam Speaker, to ensure that patients facing serious illness are able to effectively address the major issues that confront them during their illness, it is vitally important that they have access to professional case management services. The Patient Advocate Act will provide communities with the ability to establish patient advocate programs to assist patients as they negotiate the challenges of serious illness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.