Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. It is with great pleasure that I rise in support of H.R. 2910, to designate a post office in honor of my friend and distinguished colleague, the late Norman Sisisky. President John F. Kennedy once said: ``A Nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.'' While the news of Norman's death was met by great sadness by all of those who knew him, the legacy of his life and his accomplishments are to be acknowledged, revered and celebrated. I knew Norman for almost 25 years. For 5 of those years, we served together in the Virginia House of Delegates. We served together here in the House of Representatives for over 8 years. During that time, I had the honor to represent a district adjacent to his in southeast Virginia. The proximity of our districts allowed us to work side by side on many issues; and as a result, we became close, and our staffs in Washington and our district offices also became close associates. The Fourth Congressional District, all of Virginia, the entire Nation, were all well served by Norman's leadership on the House Committee on Armed Services. He was the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement and also served as a member of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness and Subcommittee on Morale, Welfare and Recreation. He worked diligently to ensure that our Nation's military was second to none. Due to his efforts, Newport News Shipbuilding has remained a world leader; and we have been able to continue to excel in nuclear aircraft carrier and submarine construction. When Virginia's military facilities came under threat of being closed during the base closings of the 1990s, Congressman Sisisky successfully protected Fort Lee, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and other bases in Virginia that have been critical to the readiness of our Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, it is, therefore, fitting that a private man that worked so tirelessly behind the scenes, without the need for fanfare and accolades, should now be honored today as the Norman Sisisky Post Office serves the public. We will be reminded of his driving spirit and tireless commitment to public service. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. With this designation of a post office in honor of Norman Sisisky, we will say a job well done.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Tom Downing was a good friend to everyone on the Peninsula. He represented part of what is now the First and Third Congressional Districts, and part, at one time, of the Second. He is highly respected, and I look forward to participating in the special order for Tom Downing next week.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I think it is appropriate to comment on the process by which the bill is coming to us. This is not the bill that was reported and deliberated on in the Committee on the Judiciary. It came to us late on the floor. No one has really had an opportunity to look at the bill to see what is in it since we have been out of our offices. The report has just come to us. It would be helpful if we would wait for some period of time so that we can at least review what we are voting on, but I guess that is not going to stop us, so here we are. First of all, this has limited to do with terrorism. This bill is general search warrant and wiretap law. It is not just limited to terrorism. Had it been limited to terrorism, this bill could have passed 3 or 4 weeks ago without much discussion, but we are talking about wiretapping law. Now, the present law under wiretap provides that you cannot wiretap until you have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Then you can get a wiretap order from a judge. There is an exception for Federal intelligence. It is a much lower standard, but you can only use the wiretap information, what you gain, in foreign intelligence. So law enforcement officials have no incentive to try to push the envelope using the foreign intelligence idea as a pretext excuse for getting wiretap orders, because if they find anything, under criminal law, they cannot use it anyway. This bill makes three significant changes. One, it reduces standards for getting a foreign intelligence wiretap from one where it is a primary, the reason you are getting it, to: it is a significant reason for getting the wiretap. Much less. Well, we wonder, if it is not the primary reason, why are you getting the wiretap? Second, it allows the roving wiretap, so once you find a target, if he is using cell phones, for example, you can go and find him wherever he is. Third, you can use the information in a criminal investigation. The combination gives us the situation where there is very little standard and one can essentially conduct a criminal investigation without probable cause. If one has, for example, a target who is using cell phones and we get the wiretap, if he uses a pay phone, we can listen to anybody using a pay phone. If he is in a club or an organization, a business, one can go and tap the phones there. If he is visiting the Democratic National Headquarters, maybe one could tap all the phones there. I had an amendment that was not accepted that would have required the police, when they are listening in on these conversations, to stop listening when the target is not using the phone. When the target leaves the organization or leaves the building, stop listening. This amendment was not accepted, so we have a situation where we now have an incentive to plant these bugs all over the place, and one can use that information. If that bothers Members, if they mind the Federal Government listening in on private conversations, if one thinks there is something inherently wrong with the government listening in to innocent conversations, and now remember, for foreign intelligence one does not even need a crime to start the thing, it can be foreign intelligence, a trade deal or anything else, and one is listening to everybody's private conversations. There are other problems with the bill. There are provisions that allow detention under certain circumstances that may be indefinite. We expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches, so-called sneak and peak, where we do not tell people we even investigated. One could start targeting domestic organizations, designate domestic groups as terrorist groups, and one could start getting the CIA into designating these groups as targets for criminal investigations. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this bill that we have not appropriately considered. That is why we need more time to think of it, because it goes way past terrorism. This is the way we are going to be conducting criminal investigations, and therefore, the bill ought to be defeated under suspension of the rules.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in supporting H.R. 2336. This bill was introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). It protects judges against certain security threats. The September 11 tragedy only heightens the security concerns that make this legislation necessary. The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 2336 favorably by voice vote on October 3, and I am not aware of any controversy regarding the bill. H.R. 2336 permanently extends the ability of Federal judges to request redaction from their financial disclosure reports. The current redaction authority sunsets at the end of this year. Thus, it is imperative that we act quickly to get this bill to the Senate where we hope it passes before the end of the year. The redaction authority for judges is appropriately limited and thus does not raise concerns about undue restrictions on public access to financial disclosure reports. The judge's report may be redacted if the Judicial Conference and U.S. Marshals Service find that revealing personal and sensitive information could endanger that judge. Furthermore, the report can only be redacted to the extent necessary to protect the judge and only so long as a danger exists. The redaction authority has not been abused to date. Of all of the judges filing reports in the year 2000, only 6 percent had their reports redacted, either wholly or even partially. Typically, the information redacted is limited to such things as the spouse's place of work, the location of a judge's second home, or the name of a law school at which a judge may teach part-time. The law requires the Judicial Conference, in concert with the Department of Justice, to file an annual report detailing the number and circumstances of redactions. This statutory reporting requirement enables Congress to monitor any abuse of the redaction authority. In short, I think the enactment of H.R. 2336 is necessary to protect the security of our Nation's judges, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 863, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2001. I am a cosponsor of this bill, along with the subcommittee chairman for the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and in fact all of the members of the Subcommittee on Crime on both sides of the aisle are cosponsors of the bill. This bill is essentially identical to the original H.R. 1501 coauthored by the former member from Florida who was then the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Mr. McCollum, and myself in the 106th Congress which was also cosponsored by all members of the subcommittee. Although that bill was passed by both the House and the Senate, so many contentious amendments were added during floor consideration of the bill, it could not pass out of conference. I hope that we can avoid the fate of H.R. 1501 by working together to keep intact the strong bipartisan support the bill now enjoys among Committee on the Judiciary members, juvenile advocates, practitioners, researchers, judges, public officials and others. We have not always experienced such bipartisan cooperation on juvenile justice issues in Congress. In the 105th Congress, we debated the Violent Youth Predator Act which focused on tough-sounding, poll- tested slogans and sound bites which were more focused on political campaigns than the reduction of juvenile crime and delinquency. All too often in dealing with the issue of crime, we rush to codify the best sound bites. For example, ``You do the adult crime, you do the adult time.'' That slogan is used to justify trying sixth graders in adult criminal court, when research shows us that codifying that sound bite will actually reduce the severity of the punishment and increase future crimes. We also have ``Three strikes and you're out,'' a baseball slogan used to justify keeping frail, 80-year-old offenders in prison way beyond the point where they pose any threat to society. I am pleased to support the legislation before us today which is not based on slogans and sound bites, but instead upon the considered advice of juvenile judges, researchers and practitioners. The components of the bill came out of hearings in which we listened to the advice of juvenile justice researchers and experts. They were unanimous that rather than moving children out of the juvenile system into the adult system, more resources were needed in the juvenile system for appropriate, individually tailored responses that allowed a broader range of services or sanctions than the traditional limitations of either probation or incarceration. We received the same advice from witnesses who appeared before the bipartisan Task Force on Youth Violence, which was appointed by the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). In keeping with recommendations from these expert witnesses, the bill before us today provides resources to be used to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions and to adequately address their need for services, starting with an appropriate response when the delinquent offense first occurs and escalating the level of response upon any succeeding offense, until the problem is eliminated. Appropriate responses could consist of punishment, family or individual counseling, drug treatment or other assistance appropriate for the individual case, and the services and sanctions need to be imposed on the first offense. We should not wait until the third, fourth, or fifth offense before we pay any attention to the problem. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recommend H.R. 863 to my colleagues. Not only is it a model bill in that it takes the advice of experts from a broad array of political and philosophical views, but also because of the model process through which it was developed. From the outset, members from both sides of the aisle on the subcommittee as well as the full committee agreed to withhold amendments which did not gain consensus in order to move forward on the points on which there was consensus. So while the bill does not contain everything that everybody wanted, it does contain enough provisions that are valuable for juveniles and the juvenile justice system. I am pleased to support this bipartisan bill. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kind words. He is a former prosecutor and a very important member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I thank him for his words. I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for their leadership in developing this bill. I would also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the bill could not have been formulated and brought to us today without the hard work of staff people, such as Bobby Vassar and Beth Sokul. Without their hard work, dedication, and ability to work together across the aisle, this bill never could have been developed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary worked long and hard on this particular bill. We spent several weeks of research and deliberation, but apparently an intelligent, deliberative process is not welcomed, and now here we are under martial law considering a completely different bill than that that was reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. There was one amendment that was not accepted in the Committee on Rules that I think we need to take some time to deliberate. That is an amendment that I offered that would have required government officials who get one of these roving wiretaps to listen only to the target of the investigation, not to innocent people who also might be using the same phone that the target might be using. Now, that is a complicated issue, and that is why we need time to deliberate. Remember, this is not just for terrorism; this is all wiretaps. So we need to be careful and notice how this thing works. First of all, under present law, there is no incentive to abuse this process of a roving wiretap under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, because if you got anything from that, you could not use it in a criminal investigation. But now, we are changing things. We want to share the information. So now there is an incentive to get that information. Under FISA, there is a very low standard. You do not need to show probable cause that a crime is being committed, all you have to show is that you are investigating something involving foreign intelligence. You do not even have to show that that is the primary cause of getting the wiretap, just a significant cause. Which begs the question: What is the primary cause? Is it a criminal investigation without probable cause, or is it just political surveillance? What is the primary cause of getting this wiretap? We do not know. And if we are listening to different people's conversations, I would like to know how this thing got started. But who you listen to, if you have gotten a right to follow a person along and find out that he is using a pay phone, you can put a bug on that pay phone. My amendment would have required you to listen only to the target on that pay phone, not everybody else, but that amendment was not accepted. So you could have people listening in on people using the pay phone. You have wide latitude, because once the search wiretap warrant is issued, you can follow the person around. Nobody is questioning whether you put it on the pay phone or the phone in the country club or the neighbor's phone, so long as the prosecutor thinks well, we might be able to get some information. We need to deliberate on this. One of the factors that created the unanimous vote in the Committee on the Judiciary was the 2-year statute of limitations which required us to quickly, with dispatch, deliberate on this issue and come to a final judgment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of provisions of this bill that ought to cause concern. One is the wiretap provision, because we have changed several provisions which, taken together, represent a fundamental attack on principles of privacy. One change we made is to allow Federal investigators to share information from intelligence-gathering and criminal investigation. That is important because under foreign intelligence gathering, the standard is intelligence gathering. For the crime, you need probable cause that a crime has been committed. Since they cannot share, this has never been a problem. But now that we are allowing them to share information, you could essentially conduct a criminal investigation using the FISA standard. We also then reduced the standard under foreign intelligence wiretap. It used to be that it had to be the primary purpose of the wiretap. Under this bill, it can be a significant purpose. Obviously not the primary purpose. And what is the primary purpose? If it is criminal investigation, then you ought to have had probable cause to get the warrant; and if you do not have probable cause, that is not the way we ought to be investigating crimes. Third, we have this roving wiretap where you can assign the wiretap to the person and the wiretap follows the person. That means that wherever the person goes, whatever phone that the person uses, you can tap that phone, neighbors, pay phones, anybody else; and therefore you have a situation where innocent people who may also be using that phone will have their conversations listened in on. I will note that this is not limited to terrorism, and it is not even limited to criminal activity. The language in this bill needs improvement. That is why we at least insisted on a short sunset that has been expanded to a full 5 years. We need time to reconsider and draft legislation without the rush that this bill has been subjected to. We need to make sure that we have a bill that we can be proud of. The Committee on the Judiciary had a bill; we ought to go back to that bill. But we ought to be concerned about the wiretap provisions under this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in support of H.R. 1749 to designate a post office in Newport News, Virginia as the ``Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building.'' The Virginia Delegation is pleased to support this bill. He was well thought of and highly respected by all of us. The delegation has always worked cooperatively and in a bipartisan fashion on issues affecting Virginia and Herb steadfastly contributed to that spirit. It is fitting that we pay tribute to Herb's memory and service by naming a post office for him. Herb's hard work and dedication to the constituents of the 1st Congressional District of Virginia, which he always referred to as ``America's 1st District'', was well known. Herb and I served neighboring districts in the House and during my service in the Virginia Legislature, he was either my state Senator or my Congressman, so we had many opportunities to work together to represent the interests of the residents of the Hampton Roads area. Having worked side by side, I can tell you that Herb Bateman was a hard working and effective legislator during his many years of public service. He conscientiously promoted the needs of a district with a strong military and federal presence. As a member of the Armed Services committee, he made military readiness and the concerns of military families his highest priorities. Because of his total dedication, America enjoys a strong military and school districts with a large military presence receive additional federal funding through Impact Aid. In Hampton Roads, we have been particularly grateful for Herb's leadership because we continue to build aircraft carriers and submarines, NASA budgets reflect a higher priority for the aeronautics research proudly done at NASA Langley Research Center and the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab) continues to excel. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we honor Herb's memory and service to the 1st Congressional district and to this body by naming a post office for him. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) to increase the target price for peanuts. While I appreciate the committee's work on the bill and particularly on this issue, I remain deeply concerned that the changes made to the peanut program will not provide enough funding to keep farmers in business. The farmers in my district have told me that unless changes are made to the peanut section of the bill, they do not expect there to be any peanut farmers in certain parts of Virginia. According to the Virginia Tech extension office, it costs the Virginia producers $539 per ton to raise peanuts, excluding the land costs and return to management. These producers are the farmers, whether they own the land or rent it. Assuming that the producer would receive all of the base of $460.50 per ton that is provided in the bill, it is quite apparent that the provisions of the bill are inadequate to cover the cost of production of peanuts. In addition, most of the quota in my area of Virginia is rented. As it currently stands, the bill does not take into account the producers' rent payments. Mr. Chairman, we should keep in mind that the farmers' costs have steadily increased as a result of higher fuel costs and higher fuel- based products such as fertilizer. Already we are losing producers under the peanut program, and it is my fear that we will drive them completely out of business without some significant changes in the peanut provision of the bill. The farmers in my district simply cannot afford this, and we certainly cannot afford to lose any more farmers. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we begin to rebuild from the tragedy and devastation we experienced in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon, it is appropriate that two of the first three bills we take up this week concern the safety and well-being of our children. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1900, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). Juvenile justice is always a challenge because we have a choice of playing politics or reducing crime. This bill is a bipartisan initiative that lays the groundwork for sensible juvenile crime policy. Five years ago we started from a decidedly different perspective. The House considered juvenile crime bills with such titles as the ``Violent Youth Predator Act,'' the ``Juvenile Crime Control Act,'' and others. The titles of the bills made it clear that Congress was more considered in using political sound bites than coming up with sound policy designed to reduce crime. After those bills collapsed in partisan controversy, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) appointed a bipartisan working group on youth violence to thoughtfully review the issue of youth violence and to make meaningful suggestions. Our working group reviewed studies of problems of youth violence and heard testimony from academia, law enforcement, the judicial system, and advocacy groups. Those experts that met with us agreed that prevention and early intervention were the things that we needed to reduce crime. Those efforts needed to require parental and community participation. H.R. 1900 is a culmination of 5 years of work, at the end of which we made the choice to stop playing politics and to promote constructive legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have arrived at a different place today than where we were 5 years ago. We have made the right choice. H.R. 1900 is a bipartisan agreement that promotes sound juvenile crime policy which is based on proven research. H.R. 1900 reflects what was presented to the bipartisan working group and testimony heard through numerous hearings in Washington and across the country. We heard that prevention programs are effective in reducing youth violence in the community and often save more money than they cost. Programs such as early childhood education, structured after-school activities, dropout prevention, and mentoring have all been shown successful in reducing youth delinquency. I am also pleased that we were able to maintain the core mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act so that juveniles who come in contact with the juvenile justice system are assured of fundamental protections. For example, runaways and truants should not be jailed in secure facilities. And if juveniles are ever housed in adult facilities, it must be for short periods of time; and during that time they must be separated by sight and sound from adult offenders. Lastly, States have a responsibility to address the disproportionate number of minority youth who are under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system. The bill before us recognizes the need for community input and requires community collaboration and planning that encourages bringing delinquency prevention professionals around the table to decide how best to respond to the crime prevention needs of the community. Those experts should include the school system, law enforcement, social services, business, sociology and other experts. And for the first time we are also asking the States to ensure that the child welfare system, the foster care system, and the juvenile justice system are working together to address the needs of juvenile offenders. We know that two- thirds of children in the juvenile system are already known by the child welfare system. The link between abuse, neglect, and delinquency demands greater involvement between the various systems that serve at- risk youth. H.R. 1900 starts us down the path of greater collaboration, and I appreciate the work of my ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) in offering these important improvements to the bill. H.R. 1900 deserves the support of this body. It is not based on politics or sound bites, but instead represents sound policy; and it is the product of a constructive, bipartisan cooperative effort to reduce youth crime in our communities. It will add to the safety and security of future generations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a product of a lot of hard work. We had leadership from the committee, from the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra); the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and, our side, from our ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). But, more important, Mr. Chairman, we had hard work from our staffs, Jo-Marie St. Martin, Judy Borger, Bob Sweet, and Krisann Pearce from the Republican side, and Denise Forte, Maggie McDow, Cheryl Johnson, and Ruth Friedman from the Democratic side. I would point out that Judy Borger and Denise Forte spent innumerable long hours over the last 5 years working on this bill, and they are really the experts on juvenile justice for the House of Representatives. I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have worked over those years with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). We have had many long, difficult discussions. This is a very politically charged issue. Two years ago when we went through this, there were a lot of provisions put into the bill that his side wanted, but our side did not; a lot of provisions were put in the bill that our side wanted, that his side did not; and when we ended up, we had a bill that nobody wanted and it did not pass. We focused on those core, important issues. That was very difficult, and I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for his hard work and cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House approve the bill. It is a product of very hard work and will help our next generation. Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues in support of the resolution. Yesterday freedom's bell rang for thousands of civilian and military personnel as it has for over 200 years. Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt and his message to Congress declared, ``Yesterday, a date which will live in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked.'' Likewise, we today declared that the date of September 11, 2001, will also live in infamy. Yesterday's attack is in the order of magnitude beyond anything we have ever experienced in the history of the United States. As many as five to ten times more lives lost than at Pearl Harbor, lives of Americans from all walks of life. At this tragic time, America must speak with one voice and support the President in his efforts to hold all of those responsible accountable for their actions. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families who lost loved ones in this great tragedy. Our Nation extends its greatest appreciation to rescue personnel who responded to this tragedy, especially those who risked or gave their lives in an effort to help others and those who will continue the grim work in the days and weeks to come. May God bless America.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. It is ironic that when you have a bill entitled Patients' Bill of Rights, we are spending all of our time stripping the patients of those rights. There are many issues in this amendment, about 10 different issues, we have got 20 minutes to explain them all which is about 2 minutes per issue as we strip our patients of their fundamental rights and traditional laws when they are victims of negligence. Questions like the statute of limitations. When do you lose your right to sue? What is a reasonable amount of time before you have to file your suit or lose your rights? Two minutes is not enough time to explain that. A cap on noneconomic damages. When you lose your sight, lose a limb, what is fair, particularly if you were nonworking, did not have any economic losses? What is fair when you suffer a situation like that? States have dealt with that. The amount in this bill is one of the lowest found anywhere in the country. The complicated issue of joint and several liability. If everybody agrees that you have got a $100,000 case, how do you ever collect if the HMO is partly at fault, the doctor is partly at fault, maybe the nurse is, maybe the hospital, how do you ever get recovery, particularly if one of them is about to go bankrupt? We cannot discuss that in 2 minutes. The collateral source rule, where you have a person who has paid an insurance premium and has a benefit, who ought to get the benefit of that? Should it be the one that paid the premium, should it be Blue Cross/Blue Shield getting their money back, or should it be the one that created the damage altogether? This bill provides that out of the three, the one that created the problem gets the benefit. The calculation of the periodic payments, that is a calculated issue. We know with lottery proceeds, you can get a lump sum or get your money strung out. You know if you get the lump sum, you only get half the money. How does this work out? Do they get to just pay half the money, or do they get to spread it out? We do not have time to show that calculation and how unfair this is. This is not only bad policy, it is a bad process, and I would hope that we would defeat this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would provide for a study by the General Accounting Office of this issue. That study would include a discussion of new developments in medical technology, the need if any for somatic cell nuclear transfer, the public attitudes and prevailing ethical views, and potential legal implications. The developments in stem cell research are proceeding at a very rapid pace; and it is difficult for Congress, which moves very slowly, to take them into account. This amendment would keep Congress informed of the changes in technology and its potential for medical advance. It would also keep us advised of any need for technical changes to the bill to keep its prohibition on cloning effective and narrowly drawn. Furthermore, this is an area where public attitudes and ethical views are often confused and uncertain. The study will be helpful in summarizing and clarifying those issues. Mr. Speaker, some of the issues that we have to deal with have been reflected in the questions that have been raised on what the bill actually does: the potential for embryonic versus adult cell research, and issues such as the impact of the bill which would be in effect in the United States on medical treatments which may be available everywhere else in the world except in the United States.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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