Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a complex legislation and has no place in the debt ceiling resolution. It has been sprung on the minority party at 9:30 this morning. I understand there have been three different versions, so it is unclear exactly what is being presented to us at this time. It is unfair to have such complex legislation even being considered in this format. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member on the Committee on Science. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill and am representing the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment that allows the use of Federal funds in education for the so-called low- income scholarships. This proposal will establish a voucher program, will only serve to worsen the situation that my colleague from Virginia pointed out, because the vast majority of students will be left behind in a school system with even less resources than they have now. This amendment will not increase parental choice. In a voucher program, the parents do not have the choice. The private schools have the choice. They will choose the students already in their schools first and then the students who excel in academics next. In the hearing in Milwaukee to which there was reference, we found that the vast majority of students will be left behind in a school system with less funding than could have been available had they not had the voucher program. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will do nothing to improve the situation in the Washington, DC, public school system. I urge my colleagues to join the Washington, DC, residents themselves who have already spoken in opposition to this idea in a referendum and reject this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, in the hearing in Milwaukee we did hear great satisfaction for those who were in the program, but the fact is we did not hear from those who were left behind with fewer resources.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Congressman Herb Bateman, to pay tribute to a gentleman whose life and work have exemplified the values of hard work and dedication. Mr. William R. ``Pat'' Phillips ends a 46 year career when he retires from Newport News Shipbuilding on November 1st of this year. Mr. Phillips completed the Apprentice School at Newport News Shipbuilding in 1954. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and has been awarded an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree by Old Dominion University. During his impressive career at the shipyard, Mr. Phillips amassed a long list of achievements, holding over a dozen positions on his way to his current position as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Before reaching this status, he was the President and Chief Executive Officer of the shipyard. Mr. Phillips' leadership was instrumental to the Shipyard's continued success during the challenges of military downsizing and the shipyard's effort to re-enter the international commercial shipbuilding market, a market closed to U.S. shipyards for almost four decades. He played the key role in landing a commercial contract for the yard to build eight double-hull tankers for export. This contract has led to letters of intent for the yard to build up to 10 more of these commercial ships. Mr. Phillips is leaving the shipyard after a distinguished career and he will focus his future concerns upon his family and his community. He is very active in the local community, serving on numerous civic and educational boards. Among his many awards, Mr. Phillips was named the 1986 ``Peninsula Engineer of the Year'' by the Peninsula Engineers Committee and, in 1994, he was one of five to receive the ``First Annual International Maritime Hall of Fame Award,'' presented by The Maritime Association of the Port of New York/New Jersey. Pat Phillips has been a role model who has shown to his employees that hard work does pay. Having worked his way from the bottom ranks of the company to the top position, Mr. Phillips' outstanding achievement will not go unnoticed nor soon be forgotten.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, 5 grams of crack, 10 doses, a couple of hundred dollars worth, 5 years mandatory minimum; 500 grams of powder, 5,000 doses, tens of thousands of dollars to get the same penalty. In fact, possessing the 10 doses only gets a person more time than distributing tens of thousands of dollars worth of powder cocaine. Ninety-five percent of those convicted for crack offenses are black and Hispanic. Seventy-five percent of those convicted of powder offenses are white. The Commission decided to equalize the base sentence with enhancement. Some say that crack dealers ought to get more because of the nature of the distribution. The enhancements will take that into consideration. Because you will get more time if you have a firearm, violence or death, juveniles, prior prison records, near schools, leadership role in the enterprise, other crimes, the sentencing will be based on the crime and based on an objective determination, not because the group happens to be 95 percent black. Mr. Chairman, the reason that we have a Commission is to take the politics out of the sentencing. Over 500 prior sentence changes have been made. None have been rejected. They can consider the evidence. For example, the evidence in possession is that there is a 68-percent recidivism rate for those that go to prison, 11 percent recidivism rate for those who get treatment. So we spend more money, end up with more crime if we send people to prison for simple possession. The Commission can act intelligently and make that decision without regard to the political implications. The reason for the Commission is to put things in perspective, Mr. Chairman. Five-year mandatory minimum for users and small-time street dealers with a couple of hundred dollars worth, 95 percent black and Hispanic. Street dealers will be replaced as soon as they get arrested. Those distributing tens of thousands of dollars of uncooked crack or pre-crack or powder can get probation, a group 75 percent white. The Commission can treat large-scale dealers of tens of thousands of dollars of uncooked crack more seriously than street dealers or simple possession without regard to political implications. This bill rejects the intelligent, nonpolitical analysis of the Commission in an unprecedented act. The bill suggests that we should go back, to send the issue back to the Sentencing Commission to study it. Yet there is no date for the end of the study. And there is nothing to study. Because they told us what they thought. They told us that there is an unjustified disparity with racial overtones. We should defeat the bill, let the nonpolitical Sentencing Commission recommendations become law. It is the fair thing to do.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, the present law, as has already been stated, finds that five grams of crack will get you 5 years mandatory minimum. That is a couple hundred dollars worth. Five hundred grams of powder is what you have to sell to get the same amount of time. That is tens of thousands of dollars. The facts we have found are that 95 percent of those convicted of crack are black or Hispanic, although the majority of users are white. For powder, 75 percent of those convicted of powder cocaine offenses are white. The Sentencing Commission equalized the base sentence for both of those offenses with enhancements. You will get extra time after the base if a firearm is used, violence, death, if juveniles are used, if there is a prior record, depending on an individual's role in the enterprise, whether or not they are near schools, if other crimes are involved. The way crack is distributed generally will get more enhancements. But they will be getting a higher sentence because of what they did not because of their race. We have the Commission to get the sentencing policy out of politics and into reason. In fact, over 500 prior recommendations have been made. None have been rejected. The evidence we have seen in drug courts, Mr. Speaker, is that it makes more sense to have users of drugs treated by drug treatment rather than go to jail anyway. When we had drug courts consider, we found those we sent to prison would have a recidivism rate of 68 percent, whereas those sent to treatment would have a recidivism rate of 11 percent. Mr. Speaker, by having this mandatory minimum for those who are guilty of possession only of a couple of hundred dollars worth of crack, we will have more crime and spend more money and lock up a group that is 95-percent black or Hispanic. So we have the rule. The rule does not allow an amendment for the money laundering part. We had no hearings on that, so we do not know what that is about and no amendment has been ruled in order. There is no date for the reporting back for the Sentencing Commission, other than their normal reporting back. There is, Mr. Speaker, a report from the Justice Department, but not the Sentencing Commission. We have recommended in this legislation that they study this issue for another year. Mr. Speaker, last year we told them to study it. They studied it and they came back and told us that it was wrong to have the disparity. I hope that we will reject the rule and reject the bill.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman about the Conyers amendment itself; it just deals with possession. It does not do anything dealing with distribution, dealing. It discourages all of that.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exposes the bill for what it is. Ten doses of crack, about a couple hundred dollars' worth, possession only, 5 years mandatory minimum. No amount of possession of uncooked crack, that is powder, can get an individual a mandatory minimum. In fact, it takes almost $50,000 worth of cocaine for conviction of distribution to get the 5 years mandatory minimum. So we have the situation where we can catch someone distributing 20,000 dollars' worth of powder, they get probation; and the person caught with a couple hundred dollars' worth of possession only, crack cocaine, gets a 5-year mandatory minimum. Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of those who are charged with crack offenses are black or Hispanic, 75 percent of those charged with powder offenses are white. This amendment addresses possession only. We have heard, through evidence in drug courts, that the best way to deal with nonviolent, low level, first offense, possession only drug offenders is through treatment. If we send them to jail we can expect a recidivism rate of 68 percent, which would cost us, at 5 years, $25,000 a year, it costs us $125,000. If we give them treatment, an 11-percent recidivism, an 80-percent drop, at $1,600 in cost, that is less than 2 percent of what it took to send them to prison. So if we lock up a group, virtually all black and Hispanic, it will cost us more and we will end up with more crime. That does not make sense. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a mandatory jail sentence for any drug possession charge other than crack, for which virtually all the defendants are black and Hispanic. Not uncooked crack, that is powder, not heroin, PCP, LSD. Nothing for possession only. The 5-year mandatory minimum for possession of crack costs more, results in more crime, and locks up minorities. That is why the Commission voted to change it. Mr. Chairman, we have never rejected a Commission recommendation. At least let the recommendations as far as possession of crack go forward. Vote ``yes'' on the Conyers amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, we have never before rejected a recommendation of the Sentencing Commission although we have had 500 or so opportunities. We are going to send this back to the Commission to study. They have already studied it. They said the disparity between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine sentencing is not justified and that there are severe racial implications. The purpose of the Commission is to take the politics out of sentencing. This bill makes no sense because it gives a person convicted of possession of only a couple of hundred dollars' worth of crack cocaine, 95 percent of that group are black or Hispanic, they give them a tougher sentence than those who are caught distributing tens of thousands of dollars' worth of powdered cocaine, 75 percent happen to be white. The Commission eliminated this disparity after due deliberation and if [[Page H 10282]] we are going to tell them to reconsider, we ought to at least give them a date certain by which they ought to report. I stand in support of the motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to speak while everyone is in a cooperative mood. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment to restore $33.4 million in fund cuts from NASA's advanced subsonic technology request, which is one of the main components of NASA's aeronautics activity. Although I acknowledge and support the need to cut government spending where appropriate in order to meet our budget responsibilities, such a cut to NASA's aeronautics program is extremely counterproductive to our shared goals of creating a stronger economy and a stronger America. Mr. Chairman, the aeronautics industry is responsible for this country's greatest positive balance of trade, $30 billion, and without the research and support of NASA the U.S. aeronautics research would not be competitive in the global marketplace. It was, in fact, the purpose for which Congress created NASA in the first place. Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember that Congress created NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, the NACA, for the purpose of regaining America's competitiveness in aviation at a time of European dominance. Despite the early lead the country enjoyed as a result of the Wright Brothers' flight in 1903, by 1917 the Europeans had become the major force in aviation. NACA established NASA Langley in Hampton, VA, as a research center to provide the United States with the competitive edge it had lost to the Europeans by providing long-term research and some of the first successful public-private partnerships that helped the United States to regain its preeminence in aeronautics. Now, at a time when the Europeans are in high gear supporting research and development of the Airbus, we are poised to shoot ourselves in the foot again by cutting the very program that kept the United States aeronautics program competitive. We are on a fast track to the back seat status we suffered in 1917. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while not restoring all of the funds cut in NASA's very modest request, will enable these programs to continue at a responsible level, so that we can effectively continue our long-term research in fuel economy, in increased safety, reduced sonic boom, improved design, and reduced environmental impacts. Much of this research is considered high-risk, high-reward research, the very kind of research that private companies who have to be concerned about their quarterly profits are least likely to invest in until the research looks promising on a short-term basis. Considering the state of the national economy, we can ill-afford to reduce earned investment in long-term research in the aeronautics industry. NASA aeronautics works and is deserving for our continued support and attention. Mr. Chairman, the House appropriations subcommittee, the Senate appropriations and authorizing committees have all fully funded this program. The committee bill is the only one to cut the advanced subsonic program by $34.4 million. We should not contribute to the loss of U.S. preeminence in aeronautics. I urge the Members of both sides of the aisle to continue to support aeronautics and this country's economy by supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, all Americans should be concerned about the proposed massive cuts in the Medicare Program--not simply because they may affect current and future benefits under the program, but they will affect health care cost for all of us. A large percentage of the $270 billion reduction comes from cuts in payments to health care providers. All employers should be especially concerned about such massive reductions, because ultimately they will have to pay for them. The problem is that the same number of people will get sick and require the same amount of care, regardless of how their care is paid for. Paying providers less for that care under the Medicare Program does nothing about costs other than to pass them on to Medicare beneficiaries and other paying patients. There is a big difference between controlling costs and simply not paying the bills. Last year, we learned from our efforts to reform the health care delivery system in this country that it is like a balloon--if you squeeze it in one place, it pops out in another. Likewise when health care providers give care to patients who cannot or do not pay the full cost, those providers shift the cost of that care to patients who pay the going rate by charging them more to make up for the uncompensated care. We will see those higher costs in our insurance premiums and in higher copays, deductibles, and prices for medical procedures. Higher health care costs will also mean more costly care as people avoid addressing minor problems to save money and those problems become emergencies or require acute care. Thus, we will all pay more and get less if the proposed Republican plan goes into effect. Of course, there is one group who is not worried about the cost- shifting and the higher medical costs. That group is the upper 20 percent of high income taxpayers who will receive 80 percent of the $250 billion dollar tax cut funded by the Republican plan to reduce Medicare. While we all agree that we need a long-term fix of the Medicare financing plan, we do not have to put those dependent upon Medicare in jeopardy to do so, especially if the reason is to pay for a tax cut to benefit mostly wealthy individuals. We have made adjustments in the program before to keep it viable; we can do that now for a lot less than $270 billion if we do not have to make room in the budget for a $250 billion tax cut. The real solution to the Medicare financing issue is to fix it in the context of universal health care. Neither Medicare nor any other part of the health delivery system can be permanently fixed on a stand-alone basis. That is why hearings are needed to hear from experts, not just politicians, on what is needed and how long it will take to fix the program in a fiscally sound manner that does not impose unnecessary hardships on beneficiaries. The current approach to fixing Medicare is a cure worse than the disease. Taking $270 billion from beneficiaries to justify a $250 billion tax cut to mostly benefit wealthy individuals is certainly not the way to do it.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has explained the purpose of this bill, a technical amendment to ensure that in multidefendant cases, there is at least one Federal district where venue is proper. The problem with the venue statute as it is currently written is that it is possible to read the language in such a way that there could be no Federal district court where venue is proper in some multidefendant cases. This bill resolves the ambiguity in that language, and ensures that venue requirements will not defeat the ability to bring a civil action in Federal court if subject matter and personal jurisdiction are available. The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States supporting this bill. Having identified the ambiguity in the current venue provisions, it is important that we amend the language to ensure that there is at least one Federal district court where venue is proper in multidefendant cases. S. 532 achieves that end, and I urge its passage. 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from California in supporting this bill, because it will help our Federal courts achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness. The demonstration program that is the subject of this bill, involves five Federal district courts, that have been experimenting with various case management systems, and forms of alternative dispute resolution, since the program was established 4 years ago. At the same time, there is a parallel pilot court program, which is testing certain principles of litigation management and cost-and-delay reduction. These programs are testing a number of systems, in a manner that will permit the Federal judiciary to compare their relative effectiveness. As the gentleman from California has explained, we extended the pilot program last year for 1 additional year, with a 1-year extension for the study that will evaluate that program. We inadvertently failed, however, to grant a similar extension to the demonstration program. This bill will restore the demonstration program to the same time line that applies to the pilot program, making the two programs more directly comparable, and improving the studies of both programs, by ensuring that an additional year of court experience, is included in those studies. Thus, passage of S. 464 will enable our Federal courts to get the full benefit of these studies. 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 rise in support of H.R. 1091 and would like to speak to the impact of the bill on the Richmond area. This legislation is important because it relieves a burden from landowners of having to worry about the possibility of condemnation of their land by the Richmond National Battlefield Park. For too long, the park has had the ability to use this process to acquire land without the permission of landowners. I applaud my colleague from the Richmond area, Mr. Bliley, for realizing our constituents' concerns and for removing the threat of condemnation in this legislation. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this power has never been used nor is there any anticipation that it would be used in the foreseeable future. This bill, therefore, removes the cloud of uncertainty and concern of area residents near the battlefield. While this bill reduces the large area of potential land acquisition, I agree with my other colleagues from Virginia that there is nothing in this legislation that will prevent specific land acquisition in the future through legislative authorizations for either purchase or acceptance of donated lands. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses an important battle site. Nearly 131 years ago, on September 29, 1864, near Richmond, VA, in an area referred to as New Market Heights, U.S. Colored Troops would assault a Confederate position, suffer extreme losses [[Page H 9082]] and have 14 of their ranks receive Medals of Honor for bravery in action. Mr. Speaker, in the entire balance of the Civil War, only 2 more Army medals were awarded to African-Americans and no other battle in the entire Civil War generated 14 Medal of Honor designees. Until this past year, however, the story of these 14 African-American soldiers was scarcely remembered or retold. A Richmond Times-Dispatch article dated May 21 of this year calls this battlefield one of the Nation's most forgotten historical sites. But with the assistance of my colleague from Richmond we are now headed in the right direction by honoring these 14 men, bringing just acknowledgment and credit to a previously forgotten event. I am grateful for the help of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and support in crafting legislation that ensures that the battle of New Market Heights will be recognized for its historic significance. Mr. Speaker, this bill responds to the concerns of landowners in Henrico County, it focuses the resources of the National Park Service on truly historically significant sites, and gives proper recognition to the valiant African-American soldiers in New Market Heights. I therefore join my colleagues from Virginia, both in the Richmond area and the Shenandoah area, in support of this bill. I thank the gentleman from Utah and the gentleman from New Mexico for their cooperation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the National Bar Association and outgoing President H.T. Smith, as they convene this week in Baltimore, MD. The theme of the NBA's 70th Annual Convention is ``Economic and Political Empowerment, Justice for Our Time.'' During the first quarter of the 20th century, 12 African-American pioneers with a mutual interest and dedication to justice and the civil rights of all, helped structure the legal struggle of the African- American race in America. The National Bar Association [NBA], formally organized in Des Moines, IA, on August 1, 1925, was conceived by George H. Woodson, S. Joe Brown, Gertrude E. Rush, James B. Morris, Charles P. Howard, Sr., Wendell E. Green, C. Francis Stradford, Jesse N. Baker, William H. Haynes, George C. Adams, Charles H. Calloway, and L. Amasa Knox. When the NBA was organized in 1925, less than 120 belonged to the association. By 1945, there were nearly 250 members representing 25 percent of the African-American members of the bar. Today, the NBA is the Nation's oldest and largest national association of predominantly African-American lawyers and judges. It has 79 affiliate chapters throughout the Nation and represents a network of over 16,000 lawyers, judges, and law students. In its 70 year history, the National Bar Association has been at the forefront of the battle for increasing access to legal representation for all citizens. Legions of African-American lawyers affiliated with the NBA ushered in the rule of law through the turbulent 1920's through the 1950's. African-American lawyers such as Judge James A. Cobb, T. Gillis Nutter, and Ashbie Hawkins fought the famous segregation case of Louisville and the Covenant cases of the District of Columbia. In 1940, when the number of African-American lawyers barely exceeded 1,000 nationwide, the NBA attempted to establish ``free legal clinics in all cities with a `colored' population of 5,000 or more.'' The NBA was only 25 years old when the Supreme Court outlawed segregation in Brown versus Board of Education. This decision culminated a long struggle by African-American lawyers such as Thurgood Marshall, the first African- American U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and U.S. District Court Judge Constance Baker Motley, the first African-American female Federal judge. In the 1980's, the NBA was signatory on two amicus curiae briefs in cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court: a title VII case in which a female associate brought suit against a large law firm and the justices ruled that partnership decisions must comply with Federal employment discrimination laws; and a brief protesting the criminal contempt conviction of Howard Moore, Jr., a nationally prominent civil rights attorney cited for criminal contempt and fined $5,000 on the basis of a single question asked of a witness to determine racial bias during his cross-examination in the case. The conviction of Mr. Moore, if allowed to stand, would have had a chilling effect upon the African-American lawyer's right to fairly and strenuously advocate on behalf of his client. In recent years, the membership of the National Bar Association have been concerned with a wide range of projects: Conducted commercial law seminars in urban centers throughout the U.S. pursuant to a grant from the Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce. Condemned South African apartheid and called for immediate economic sanctions against this racist regime. Held the first national black-on-black crime conference. Launched the NBA minority bar involvement project, with funding from the Legal Services Corporation, which awarded grants to 12 subgrantee organizations for the delivery of pro bono or reduced legal fee services. Cosponsored a voting rights conference with Operation PUSH and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which was aimed at mapping litigation and enforcement strategies. The National Bar Association deserves to be commended for its efforts as they continue to labor in the vineyard for equal justice under the law. Members of the NBA serve their communities as judges, legislators, and public servants. Today, I congratulate the National Bar Association and its membership for their leadership role in the legal profession and their respective communities across the country.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment to H.R. 1555. This amendment would require prior approval by the Attorney General before a Bell operating company may enter into long distance or manufacturing. Both the Justice Department and the FCC would review the State certification of ``checklist'' compliance. Under the manager's amendment to H.R. 1555, the FCC must consult with the Department of Justice [``DOJ''] before it makes a decision on a BOC's request to offer long distance services--but DOJ has no independent role in evaluating the request. Mr. Chairman, by depriving DOJ of an independent voice in the review process, this bill creates unnecessary risks for consumers and threatens the development of a competitive local and long distance telecommunications marketplace. The aim of deregulation was to spur phone and cable companies to enter into each other's markets and create competition. That in turn would lower prices and improve service. Just the opposite would happen under H.R. 1555 in its current form. H.R. 1555 encourages local cable--phone monopolies. Cable and phone firms could merge in communities of less than 50,000. Therefore, nearly 40 percent of the nation's homes could end up with monopolies providing them both services and the public would not be protected from unreasonable rate increases. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice is the best protector of competition by utilizing the antitrust laws of this country. The Conyers amendment will ensure that the Department of Justice has a meaningful role in the telecommunications reform, and, if it passes, consumers of America will benefit.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the Third Congressional District of Virginia has three of the top murder rates. I meant to say murder. I just wanted to correct the Record.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly straightforward amendment. It moves $300 million from prison construction funds to the local law enforcement block grant so that programs for prevention and cops can be funded to a larger extent. Mr. Chairman, this will have no effect on the money for incarcerating illegal aliens that we just heard the debate on. The prison grant program requires an increase in incarceration on a massive basis. We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, over five times the international average. Mr. Chairman, increasing incarceration wastes the scarce resources that could be better spent on prevention. In Virginia, for example, Mr. Chairman, we have a program that we have just embarked on that will cost the State of Virginia $1 billion per congressional district over the next 10 years in increased prison expenses, and the estimates are that the reduction in crime will be less than 4 percent, statistically insignificant. Mr. Chairman, that is a national equivalent of spending $435 billion without any reduction in crime. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year we heard the city of Philadelphia needs about $2\1/2\ billion to build prisons, and again that is just one city. So more money and prisons will be a drop in the bucket as far as the crime rate is concerned. That money could be better spent, Mr. Chairman, on drug courts which take low-level drug abusers, possession only, nonviolent, and refer them into rehabilitation rather than prisons at a cost of 5 percent of what the prisons cost and will result in 80 percent reduction in crimes. We heard last night about community policing and how that works, Job Corps, education programs, recreation programs. We have heard midnight basketball savaged on this floor, yet we do not hear that the crime rate went down 60 percent in Landover, MD when the midnight basketball program went into effect. Mr. Chairman, I have 3 cities in my district that are in the top 30 in murder rate, so I want to make sure that we use our scarce resources in a way that will actually reduce crime. It is clear we will get more return for our money by putting it into local law enforcement, like crime prevention and community policing, rather than just in general increasing incarceration. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in the words of the poet Joseph Malins, in his poem ``A Fence or an Ambulance,'' ``It is better to put a strong fence around the top of a cliff than an ambulance down in the valley.'' Mr. Chairman, let us build fences, rather than buying ambulances, and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 10 seconds of my time to clarify a word that was used.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am not aware of any studies that show that increasing the time served reduces the recidivism rate. The testimony we have heard in fact is that there is no reduction in recidivism rate generated by increasing the time served. This revolving door that we have is a revolving door because we are not putting our money into prevention. We are trying to build our way out of the problem. If we are going to be honest, we ought to acknowledge that 38 percent figure. If you want to move it up to a 100- percent figure, you ought to add up and tell the American people what it is going to cost. In Virginia, proposal X that recently has been enacted, but not fully funded, increases the time served from about 25 to 50 percent, and that cost will cost Virginia $11 billion in the next 10 years. That is a national equivalent of spending $400 billion trying to build our way out of this problem. If we want to be honest, we will tell the people what result we are going to get. The studies have shown the result will be statistically insignificant. So this little $300 million we are talking about will not make any difference if we put it into incarceration. It is an insane strategy to try to build our way out of the problem. We ought to put our money where it will make a difference, and that is in prevention. That is why I have introduced the amendment, and hope it is agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.