Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois has outlined the reason why we have to have experience and the necessity of having experience and the value of democracy. We also have to look at the fact that people have already used their power to vote. There has been significant turnover in the House in the last few years. The voters have voted out old and young alike. They have discovered that some of the newer Members are totally out of touch, some of the more veteran Members are in fact more in touch and need to be returned, and they have used that power. Mr. Chairman, we should not trivialize the Constitution with amendments that are not necessary. We have before us so many variations on that amendment that it is so clear that we have not studied this sufficiently to know which version is the correct version. In fact, we have not even decided what the problem is. As the gentleman from Illinois indicated, some have said that voters need to be closer to the people, that Congressmen need to be closer to the people. Others have said if this passes we will be further away from the people. It is like snake oil. Whatever you want, this will cure. We also have a question of how close legislators ought to be to special interests. In fact, in your first term, you are more beholden to special interests than you are when you have served a number of terms. That is because after you have established yourself, you can raise your own money and you can get your own votes without having to rely on the special interests. People want Congressmen to be more interested in the people's business. As the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, when each Representative comes and has to look towards the next job instead of a career where you are required to attend to the people's business, you will find that legislators as soon as they arrive will be looking towards that next job, many of which may be employed by the various special interests that we may be voting on their interests. Mr. Chairman, we have a situation in Congress where we are very contentious and we want to improve the atmosphere in Congress. But if you think about that, are we more likely to be courteous to those that we are going to have to spend an indefinite amount of time with or those we know we will not see after next year? And then finally we find an interest to listen to the people. The people have expressed their interest in term limits, and we find this very resolution will overrule the specific expressions of many States who have said that 6-year term limits are preferable, not 12. So if we listen to the people, we should reject House Joint Resolution 2 because it would not allow the shorter limit that people have spoken to. In fact, some States do not want term limits at all. We should have adopted as in order the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] which would give the States the option if we are going to have any term limits at all. Mr. Chairman, we have not determined which version is appropriate. We have not even determined what problem we are trying to solve. Term limits may sound like a catchy idea, but the existing limits, called elections, are the best way to go. I ask Members to vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 2.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, of all of the amendments, this is the least bad, but not good, so I still oppose it. However, it does allow the States the option, if one State finds itself with a horrible delegation, of wiping it clean with some term limits, but the other States would not be so affected. So although it is the least bad, it is still not good and I have to oppose it. But I thank the gentleman for offering us this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Shelia Jackson-Lee.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I noticed in one of the reviews of the various amendments that the amendment that is in order that I will be presenting has been inadvertently mistaken in its terms. That review mistakenly suggested that my amendment would limit the House Members to 3 terms, or 6 years for Members of the House. This is an error. In fact my amendment, like most others, sets a limit of 6 terms or 12 years for the House. My amendment is identical to the McCollum substitute, except for the fact that it allows States to set a shorter limit if they desire than those in the underlying resolution. It does nothing else. It is identical, except for the fact it allows the States an option to go lower. For those reviews that have suggested otherwise, they are in error. Today's Congressional Quarterly review is accurate in its description. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and oppose the underlying bill, without the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard previous speakers talk about trivializing the constitution. I think the exercise we are going through now points out how trivial some of this exercise is. This amendment is virtually identical to several that we have previously defeated, as I said, by margins of 3, almost 4 to 1. There is a difference in this one. The title of the thing is Congressional Term Limits Amendment. The title listed in others was, quote, Article. We use 1, 2, and 3 to designate the sections rather than A, B, and C. It is substantively identical to several we have already considered. Again, we will incorporate by reference the arguments that had those other amendments defeated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the legislation. Mr. Chairman, there is an old congressional adage that all that needs to be said has already been said but all that need to say it have not already said it. This substitute is virtually identical to several that have been defeated previously by margins of greater than 3 to 1. This amendment refers to the legislation as an amendment and has a perfecting paragraph; the Arkansas amendment refers to legislation as the congressional term-limits amendment; the Colorado amendment referred to it as an amendment; the Idaho amendment referred to it as an article; the Missouri amendment referred to it as an amendment; the next amendment we will consider refers to it as an amendment, but substantively they are all identical. So we will just incorporate by reference all of the arguments against this amendment that have previously been made and have been very successful in defeating it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This one has an actual substantive difference from some of the others we have considered, having a lifetime of 8 years. With 8 years, it is 2 years less worse than the rest we have considered, which were defeated by margins of 4 to 1. Obviously, the fact that this is on the floor suggests that the committee did not offer any arguments as to why this is any better or worse than any of the others we have considered. I think the Goldilocks rationale probably is about the most substantive rationale for this that I have seen. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that the committee treat this the same way they have treated the others. Without prolonging the triviality, Mr. Chairman, I would just refer to the arguments that have resulted in defeat of the others. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution heard with term limits, we heard testimony that several States have either enacted or are considering enacting term limits of less than 12 years. If we are going to have term limits, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the States ought to have that option. As I have said, personally I think it is unnecessary and unwise to limit the terms. The voters can limit those terms when they see fit. Judging from the turnover in Congress in recent years, more than 70 percent of the House has turned over since 1990. So the voters seem to be doing a pretty good job. Mr. Chairman, if this resolution passes without my amendment, it would have the incredible effect of setting aside the expressed representations of many States. It is obvious from this exercise that we have been going through that many States expect to be heard in this debate. So if we are to ever have any finality on this, we have to allow States to express their views and adopt limits less than 12 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I understand this amendment, it provides for three House terms, two Senate terms and is substantively identical to five earlier versions that we have considered. It is my understanding that the only difference between this amendment and other amendments is the fact that the sections are numbered 1, 2 and 3. And instead of using 1, 2 and 3 and capital A and capital B and capital C, this one designates the sections using small A, small B, and small C. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the sponsor of the amendment to explain to me if there are any other differences between this and other amendments that we have been defeating by margins of three and four to one. If there are any differences other than the designation 1, 2, 3, capital A, B and C and the small letters A, B and C, I yield to the gentleman to respond.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Congressman Herb Bateman and myself, I would like to take this time to share with our colleagues an exciting private-public partnership in our hometown of Newport News, VA. This program, which will have its grand opening on September 30, 1996, is the brainchild of Mr. Earl Ferguson, president of Artcraft Companies. Aircraft Companies has been instrumental in providing and renovating affordable housing for low-income families in Richmond, Roanoke, Williamsburg, Newport News and Norfolk. While performing these renovations, Mr. Ferguson found that many of the children who live in these areas are coming home after-school with little to occupy their free time. As many of us know, and as documented by research conducted by the Carnegie Foundation, children have a great deal of unsupervised free time during the day--up to 40 percent. It is during this discretionary time that children and youth are most at risk of violence, teen-pregnancy and drug use. The children who reside in Pinedale Manor in Newport News, newly renovated by Artcraft Companies, were also at risk of engaging in these destructive activities. Now, through the innovations of Mr. Ferguson, these children are members of the Pinedale Manor Boys and Girls Club. Mr. Ferguson contributed the funds to open and operate this club on- site at Pinedale Manor. This unique investment in the Pinedale Manor community assures the families of Pinedale Manor the opportunity to live in a safe, rehabilitated environment and provides the children a structured and supervised program to go to after-school and during the evening. With support from the Peninsula Boys and Girls Club, the Pinedale Manor Boys and Girls Club provides 24 boys and girls an opportunity to participate in constructive educational and social development activities. Activities such as reading groups, arts and crafts, and recreational activities have been instrumental in minimizing the dangers that unsupervised after-school time presents to young children. The Pinedale Manor Boys and Girls Club is growing and expects to be able to accommodate 60 children in the very near future. The Pinedale Manor Boys and Girls Club is modeled after the Lincoln Manor Boys and Girls Club in Richmond, Virginia, also financed by Mr. Ferguson. According to Mr. Ferguson, ``It's the right thing to do, and it's the way we want to run our company. But it's also not totally philanthropic; it's good mix of economics and common sense.'' Mr. Speaker, economics and common sense have inspired many public- private partnerships. This partnership is a model for community reinvestment that deserves to be replicated in other local communities. Not only will the children of Pinedale Manor benefit from Mr. Ferguson's contributions, but the entire community of Newport News will have the long-term benefits of this venture.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his hard work and dedication over the years. I would also like to thank my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Bateman, for his hard work and diligence in this effort, not only in this effort but over the years for impact aid. It is an extremely important element of funding for education in highly impacted areas. My colleague from Virginia has worked extremely hard in this area. Having found the mistake, he had even more work to do to get it back in. I want to congratulate the gentleman for a job well done. There are many others, including the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], who have been very diligent in this area, but I especially wanted to thank my colleague from Virginia for his hard work.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, recently at a special session of the Congressional Black Caucus, members learned about the devastating impact of diabetes in the African-American community. I wanted to share with my colleagues the exciting research underway at the Diabetes Institute in Norfolk, VA. The work being done there holds out the hope that we can actually discover a cure for this disease and I believe we must do all we can to support efforts that have this much promise. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the attached article from the Virginia-Pilot be printed in the Congressional Record. [The Virginia-Pilot, Tuesday, July 9, 1996] A Research Gamble (By Marie Joyce) Someday, Dr. Aaron I. Vinik may be able to say that he and his colleagues helped cure diabetes, through work they did at the Diabetes Institutes at Norfolk's Eastern Virginia Medical School. Someday. Right now, Vinik, his staff and the medical school are taking a high-stakes gamble. Medical research is expensive. The payoff isn't guaranteed. Other scientists around the world are chasing the same type of cure and hoping to get there first. Because fund-raising efforts have fallen short and grants are hard to come by, money matters now loom almost as large as scientific questions at the institutes. If Vinik's project succeeds, it could help millions of diabetes sufferers, and bring glory and money to the relatively new medical school and to Hampton Roads. If it fails--despite years of effort and millions of dollars--most people probably will never know about it. The public hears only about the great discoveries, said Jock R. Wheeler, the school's dean. ``There are many more scientists who work their entire lifetimes and never gain recognition or the goals they've set for themselves,'' he said. ``That doesn't mean they've been unsuccessful.'' A scientist who cures diabetes would improve the lives of millions in the United States alone. Diabetes happens because the body either can't make or can't properly use insulin, a hormone that helps process sugar and other carbohydrates. It has been diagnosed in 8 million Americans, and some health officials estimate as many as 8 million more have the disease but don't know it. In 1992, diabetes contributed to the deaths of at least 170,000 people in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It can lead to blindness, heart disease, stroke, kidney failure and nerve damage. Vinik and his staff say they have taken a big step toward a possible cure. Working with collaborators at McGill University in Montreal, they've discovered a mix of proteins that spurs the body to grow more insulin-producing cells, Vinik says. The researchers have experimented with a mix of proteins that cures the disease in hamsters, that were given a chemical to make them diabetic, Vinik said. The scientists do much of their work in a building on Brambleton Avenue, across from the medical school's main buildings. The human body grows insulin-producing cells, located at the pancreas, before birth. After birth, the body doesn't create many more of these cells. But in people with diabetes, the process malfunctions. With type 1 diabetes--which accounts for only about 5 percent of all cases--the body apparently attacks and kills its own insulin-producing cells. With type 2, either the body can't efficiently use the insulin or the cells can't make enough; sometimes, the cells die under the strain. Vinik and his colleagues are trying to revive the ability the body had before birth, prompting it to grow more insulin- producing cells. To do that, they must accomplish two things: They must find a specific gene that acts as a blueprint, telling the body to create the protein. Or they must isolate the specific protein created by the gene. They must find other substances that shut off the process once enough insulin-producing cells have been created. Potentially, Vinik says, the discovery could help all type 1 sufferers and the 15 percent or so of type 2 victims who lose their insulin-producing cells. If they can accomplish all this in animals, they probably can do it in humans, too, Vinik said. Right now, the key is finding the blueprint gene in hamsters. No one at the medical school will disclose how close--or how far--they are. They must be careful, they say, not to reveal too much to rival scientists. ``One never knows until the last minute, until the last experiment was done,'' said Dr. Leon-Paul Georges, director of the institutes. ``It's a tremendous gamble, in a way.'' For the last 7 years or so, the medical school and Hampton Roads contributors have been putting their money on the table to fund this research. The institutes run a large patient-care clinic and education programs. Vinik, who had earned an international reputation at the University of Michigan Medical School and elsewhere, arrived to head the research division in 1990. A new laboratory opened that fall, after a foundation fund- raising campaign brought in $11.5 million in less than four years. Georges remembers a day when he and Vinik ordered a million dollars worth of sophisticated diagnostic equipment and supplies. Since then, there have been up years and down years with fund raising, said Georges. The last year or so has been down. Last week, the research division dropped 10 jobs, almost half of its 25-person staff, although none of the researchers worked on Vinik's key project. They're also scaling back on supplies and equipment purchases. The patient care and education departments weren't affected. The Diabetes Institutes Foundation, the Norfolk-based, non- profit group that finds money for the institutes, collected about $700,000 less than it hoped to in the 1994-95 fiscal year, according to the foundation's tax forms. The foundation began that year about $700,000 behind for a combined shortfall of about $1.4 million. The foundation's board is composed mostly of community volunteers. Georges, who sits on the board, said that despite members' hard work, it simply wasn't possible to raise as much as they had hoped. They were able to raise about $800,000 for the institutes in the 1994-95 fiscal year, according to tax documents. The medical school had been making up the difference between what was budgeted and what was raised. The foundation intends to repay the money, but so far hasn't been able to, Georges said. This year, the medical school's and institutes' board members decided the school couldn't fill the gap anymore. With less money, Vinik says, the institute must look to other funding sources to continue at the same pace. And success may depend on speed. More than a half-dozen other centers around the world are investigating the same type of treatment. Wheeler, the medical school's dean, won't say whether he thinks the work will go more slowly now. He said the board still backs Vinik's project. ``We think the diabetes program has been very successful and we think it will continue to be very successful,'' Wheeler said. But the foundation and the medical school--like institutions around the country--have been hurt by a shrinking pot of research and education money from the government and private groups, say school officials. ``The decisions in medical schools are very difficult right now,'' Wheeler said. The Diabetes Institutes will continue with other major research projects, although they may have to cut back on some less important investigations. Among other things, the institutes are participating in a study of a medicine that reverses some diabetes-related nerve damage. A major biotechnology company is funding some of that work. The project has attracted a lot of attention and brought in patients and donations from around the country. As for the project on growing insulin-producing cells, the institutes will look for other sources of money, said Vinik. They will seek more collaborators at other schools, who would take on some of the work in exchange for some of the benefits. Biomedical companies may be willing to bankroll the work because they expect it to pay off. Georges and Vinik say they have spoken with several major firms, which have signed agreements to examine the research without divulging it. Research spending is always a bit of a wild card investment, even through school administrators look hard at the science before they spend the money. ``I can't say, `I have this project, and if I spend this amount of money, I'm going to get this result,''' Wheeler said. ``You have to understand--that's what research is all about. You're looking for new ideas. . . You may not discover the fountain of youth.''

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. We all agree that we need to address the problem of methamphetamine manufacture, sale, and use. The question is whether we address it in a way that is clearly effective in reducing the problem or whether we address it in a way that is calculated only to enhance our political posture. This bill relies on mandatory minimum penalties as the primary vehicle for reducing the manufacture and use of methamphetamine. Yet there is no evidence that such penalties will have any impact on reducing drug use. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the 5-year mandatory minimum for crack cocaine has not demonstrated any effect in switching drug users from selling crack to powder cocaine, for which they can get probation for 99 times more drugs. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to look at the best way of reducing the use of speed, all of the credible evidence indicates that drug treatment is many times more effective and cheaper than mandatory minimum sentences. The drug court program has indicated that the costs of drug court is not only cheaper but more effective in reducing crime. In fact, using rehabilitation rather than prisons, we found that prisons cost five times more and result in much more crime. A drug study in California showed that $7 was saved in prison costs for every dollar put into drug rehabilitation. According to an impact statement, Mr. Speaker, we are going to spend $100 million in additional prison costs if we pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, those opposing the bill want to return it to the Committee on the Judiciary so that we can seriously address the best way of reducing the use of methamphetamine rather than this last-minute waste of the taxpayers' money. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would save money and reduce crime by defeating this bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the bill. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact sponsored by the Southern Governors Association is a commonsense approach to strengthening a State's ability to respond and protect its citizens when disaster strikes. Recently my district suffered severe damage from the winds and floods crated by Hurricane Fran. This was not the first and unfortunately will not be the last hurricane to hit the Commonwealth of Virginia. The out- of-State support we received, both public and private, in the recovery effort was essential. The people and organizations who immediately provided assistance made the personal shot easier to bear and has allowed economic recovery to start quicker. As Virginians, we, too, recognize the need to support other States that suffer natural disasters. Hurricanes Andrew and Hugo, Bob and Eloise, all brought Virginia humanitarian aid and volunteers to those disaster sites. Good Samaritans from Virginia and many other States, either under an organized charity or individually, give assistance to those who suffer great loss. State governments also provide assistance in the form of public utility and law enforcement personnel, and give emergency supplies and equipment. This compact, created by the Southern Governors Association and modeled on the existing arrangement for the Island of Puerto Rico, assures that financial mechanisms are in place to cover State costs. That way the public funds collected and dedicated for the expenses within one State may in an emergency be used to support residents of another State. When that occurs, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact specifies how reimbursement will be accomplished. This agreement has been 3 years in the making, and it is appropriate at this time to thank some of those responsible for bringing this issue to Congress. I want to recognize: Mr. Addison E. Slayton, Jr., and George Urquhart of the Department of Emergency Services, and the Commonwealth of Virginia particularly because Virginia was the first State to agree to the compact; David McMillion, director of Maryland Emergency Management; Tom Feuerborn, the director of the Oklahoma Emergency Management Agency; Eric Tolbert, the bureau chief for Preparedness and Response and the Florida Division of Emergency Management; and John Carey from FEMA's general counsel who was also very much involved. I also want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and to my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], the ranking member of the subcommittee, who helped us to quickly bring this bill to the floor and to the congressional staffs that manage this issue. I also wish to thank Mr. Douglas Monroe, the senior policy analyst from the Southern Governors Association, for the past 3 years of constant effort to bring the compact and the congressional action to completion. As a compact between States, the Constitution requires congressional approval of this arrangement, and I am happy to join my friend from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, the sponsor of the bill, in urging this body to approve the joint resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the joint resolution, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 194 would grant the consent of Congress to the amendments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact. Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, this consent is needed because the Constitution requires congressional consent for compacts between States, and obviously this involves Maryland, Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. The compact has been amended five times since its creation in 1967. The amendments before us today primarily conform the procurement practices to recently enacted Federal procurement reforms. The amendments have been approved by the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia. House Joint Resolution 194 was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and was cosponsored by all of the Members representing the Washington Metropolitan Area. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 194 was reported by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law by a voice vote, and I know of no opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

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, and I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill enjoys bipartisan support. The current law prohibits employees from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service from entering into contracts with Indians or their families for the purchase, transportation or delivery of goods or services. It also prohibits these employees from engaging in any purchase or sale of services with the property of any Indian. When first passed in the 1980's, the legislation was designed to prevent Federal employees who were involved in administering programs to help Indians from taking advantage of the Indians they were supposed to be helping. While it was well-intentioned when passed, today the law appears to be outdated and has the negative effect of making it harder for Indian Health Services to recruit and retain good medical employees for remote reservations because those employees' spouses are prohibited from trading with local Indians. Mr. Speaker, passing this bill will not diminish in any way the ethnical standards because the people involved will still be covered by all of the ethics in Government regulations. The counterpart legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year, and I urge Members to support the measure.