Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McDermott-Gibbons amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gibbons-McDermott substitute for H.R. 831. Not only does the substitute provide for equitable tax treatment for the people most adversely affected by the absence of health care insurance, it also addresses, at least partially, a problem that Congress has failed to adequately address--the absence of health care insurance for hard-working Americans. Why we continue to ``stick our heads in the sand'' and pretend we don't see or feel the cost of health care to people without insurance is beyond me. After we allow them to fall into financial ruin and poorer health due to exhorbitant health care costs, we then pay a lot more through government health care provisions and higher health insurance and service costs to those who still can pay for it. We will pay much more through these methods than we will for a 25-percent deduction for uninsured or underinsured individuals. Employees in small businesses who are paying for health insurance are generally paying a lot more than employees in large group plans. The substitute will ensure that they can acquire more insurance or at least continue the limited coverage they already have. I also believe that the modifications of the nonrecognition of gain for involuntary conversions under the FCC Tax Certificate Program in the Gibbons-McDermott substitute are also reasonable ways to address any perceived short-comings in a program that has proved highly successful in bringing minorities clearly into the mainstream. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we face up to the cost of health care we are already paying substitute as a part of directly recognizing and partially addressing a serious and ever-growing crisis for American families. Mr. McDermott. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of Black History month, I rise to pay tribute to a prominent black community leader who played an important part in the local history of Virginia's Northern Neck area, the late Dr. Herbert L. Veney. Like many physicians in rural areas, Dr. Veney was called upon to use his medical training in diverse ways. In addition to his family physician private practice, he served as consultant to a local mental health facility, medical director of a community nursing care facility, and as county medical examiner. Dr. Veney was active in several organizations that supported human services, education and civil rights causes including the Richmond County Community Services Association, St. Pauls College Board of Trustees, the American Cancer Society, the Black History Museum Board and the NAACP--just to name a few. One of Dr. Veney's unique contributions to the community was founding the Black Business and Professional Coalition. Chaired by Dr. Veney from 1985 until his death last October, this organization assists minority owned businesses in the northern neck area with management skills training in addition to providing college scholarships for minority youth. Each year the BBPC holds an Unsung Heroes Awards Ceremony to honor the efforts of local citizens who have, in the words of one of its members, ``made our way easier by blazing trails for others.'' And to raise funds for scholarships. These words aptly describe the man whose persistence and dedication to minority youth made this scholarship fund possible. Dr. Veney is the kind of unsung hero who serves as a role model not only to others in the black community, but to the community at large.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and congratulate the gentleman from Illinois have in it a provision that will review the effectiveness of these expenditures. Mr. Chairman, we are going to spend $30 billion fighting crime in these various bills. This amendment will ensure that that money is well spent. It provides for the evaluation of programs, which is extremely important so that other localities may get the benefit of the experience from some programs that work, and unfortunately, some programs that do not work. So with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we will see that this money is well spent. Localities can benefit from each other's experience, and that the actual prevention programs will actually go to preventing crime. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing it.

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, our goal is to reduce crime. Studies show the effective way to do this is through crime prevention programs, education, recreation, job training programs, all of which have been studied, have been shown to reduce crime 10, 20, as much as 80 percent. Not only have fewer victims, but you also save money. We have heard of the drug courts, one-twentieth of the cost, 80 percent reduction in crime. If your goal is to reduce crime, Mr. Chairman, properly designed prevention programs work. Without the Conyers amendment, it is going to be business-as-usual; no prevention, wait for the crimes to occur, and then deal with the consequences. It is simply a matter of pay now or pay a lot more later. Prevent crime. It works. Support the Conyers amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think we know the difference between improving lighting would have a significant impact on crime in an area and could be supported. I know many localities trying to build roads who would be praised for spending this money on road building rather than crime fighting. This funding is for crime prevention, and thankfully we did have some money put into the bill a few minutes ago which would have the effect of evaluating programs for their effectiveness in preventing crime. But road building is one where we would not have to wait for the evaluation. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would adopt the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, a lot of motivation has been ascribed to some Members of the minority as to the furor over this bill. I want to make it clear that my furor is focused on the cut of $2.5 billion from prevention and police, where it can make the most difference in responding to the problem of crime. We have debated whether or not the local government or the Federal Government will decide how the money will be spent. We have had examples of local law enforcement block grants with LEAA, but I want to make it clear that my personal furor is over the $2.5 billion that the communities will have less to deal with. We have seen drug courts which operate at one-twentieth of the cost of other programs and result in an 80 percent reduction in crime. We will have less money for those programs. We have seen community policing, very effective in reducing crime. Police officers have been put on the street as a result of last years's bill. We will have less money to do that. Prevention programs, reducing crime, less money to do that. We have heard of some organizations supporting the bill. We have not heard whether or not they support the $2.5 billion cut. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would restore the $2.5 billion so the communities will have more money with which to fight crime.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is a minuscule amount of money, but it is money that will actually work. Gang reduction programs work. A program was studied in a Spokane, WA, school. They used a school to offer at-risk youth a variety of recreational and educational activities just Friday and Saturday nights. There was a volunteer effort of local merchant-donated materials. There was an intense evaluation that found that crime was reduced in the area after the program was implemented. The view of police officers as positive role models by youth was enhanced, and most of the participants recommended the program to their friends. This will reduce crime. The minuscule amount of money that will get lost in rounding off in the prison construction changed to this kind of program can do the most good. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would adopt this very worthwhile amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has indicated that there will be a block grant of $10 billion for localities to decide what they want to do in terms of prevention or police. Obviously they will have the discretion to do what they want, but they will have $2.5 billion less to do it with if the bill is passed without this amendment. Mr. Chairman, if we had a problem of people falling off a cliff, we could decide to build a fence on the cliff or we could decide to buy ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows us to build a fence, save money, prevent crime, and I would hope it would be the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment. 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, the series of crime bills we have now effectively block-grant the prevention and police money from the 1994 bill and then cut that block of money by $2.5 billion and increase the prison construction money by $2.5 billion. This amendment restores the $2.5 billion to the prevention and cops block grant. We have already seen, Mr. Chairman, the good work in getting the police out on the street. Many of the police have already been funded. The bill has only been in effect a few months and police have been funded already. Those cops are on the street practicing community policing and effectively reducing crime. Mr. Chairman, during the hearings on H.R. 3 and in the Committee on the of testimony on crime reduction that can be effectuated by primary prevention programs. Mr. Chairman, we heard testimony that the cost of drug courts was about one-twentieth of what it cost to put people in prison, and the recidivism rate was so low that you cut crime by approximately 80 percent. Head Start and Job Corps both save more money than they cost, Mr. Chairman. We have testimony in the record showing drug treatment programs which are so effective, they save $7 for every $1 that you put into the program. We have seen recreational programs. Mr. Chairman, where for 60 cents per participant, the crime rate in Phoenix, AZ, was cut significantly. Fort Myers, FL, 28 percent reduction in crime for very minimal expenditures. Gang intervention programs, drug courts, early childhood development, vocational training. Those kind of programs, Mr. Chairman, will reduce crime. The $2.5 billion that is added to the prisons in this series of bills which we seek to transfer will be an insignificant portion of the money spent on prisons. Virginia has adopted a truth-in-sentencing or so- called truth-in-sentencing provision. The way we got to 85 percent, Mr. Chairman, was to reduce the sentence 50 percent, letting those who could not make parole, the most heinous of our criminals, let them out in 50 percent of the time so that the less risky prisoners could serve more time. That cost us $7 billion Mr. Chairman, if we are going to spend that kind of money, we ought to put it in programs that will actually work. Mr. Chairman, the $30 billion crime bill from last year designated 75 percent of the money for law enforcement and prisons, despite all of the overwhelming evidence that vastly more crime reduction can be accomplished through prevention programs. The present bill compounds the problem by increasing the prisons and decreasing the money that could go to police and prevention. If our goal is to prevent crime, Mr. Chairman, we should take the politics out of crime, spend the money where it will actually do some good, and, that is, on prevention and police officers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT. I would like to ask the gentleman: You have indicated we did not have hearings, so we did not have an opportunity to flesh out the constitutional implications. Do you have any idea how the various States will be affected by this amendment?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez]. revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, there are several problems that I have with the bill. I just want to point out a couple of them. The first, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we are taking $2.5 billion out of the 1994 crime bill from the programs that actually work. That $2.5 billion added to prisons will be a drop in the bucket for the prison expenditures. We already have an incarceration rate five times that of the rest of the industrialized world. Putting $2.5 more billion into it will do very little good at all. We heard evidence that the city of Philadelphia could use almost $2.5 billion itself. Texas and California are going to spend tens of billions of dollars. Virginia, if they fund the present program that we passed last August, will spend about $7 billion in the next 10 years on prisons. of what we are already spending, so it will not make any difference, but it will take money away from what works. Drug courts have been studied. We can have, in lieu of an incarceration strategy, going to a treatment strategy, Mr. Chairman. We can have a drop in crime of 80 percent at a cost of one-twentieth of what it costs to lock people up. If you eliminate that program, and we have $1 billion in the present crime bill, but not in the crime bill that is before us, if we eliminate that, we will spend 20 times more money and end up with about 5 times more crime. We can do better than that. Mr. Chairman, I think there is another problem, and that is the so- called truth-in-sentencing. Eighty-five percent, there is no rational basis for 85 percent. We ought to focus on the time actually served, 85 percent of 5 years or half of 20 years. We want to spend twice the money on where we actually need the money to go. We also need to research the expenditures we are making, and we will have amendments along those lines.

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Mr. Chairman, there have been recent press reports about deaths in local jails and prisons. This merely requires the States and localities, when there is a death in the jail, to report it to the Attorney General so there would at least be somewhere in the U.S. Government a record of the information that is available. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 11.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, we have heard a lot of rhetoric on the floor about how safe we are going to be if we build these prisons. Let us see it. Let us study one-tenth of 1 percent of the billions of dollars we are going to spend on the bill, hundreds of billions of dollars that we are going to encourage States to spend. Let us see if it made any difference. I can understand how people would not want to study it so that they can hide behind the rhetoric. If these expenditures, if these tens of billions of dollars we are going to spend are doing any good, let us see it. Let us spend one- tenth of 1 percent to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], the Show-Me State. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].