Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would join in support of this. Traumatic brain injuries is a very important problem that we need to deal with. I would join in support of that and work with you as long as you do not affect the other projects.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). I support the underlying goal of the gentleman's amendment to acquire and construct long-term residential medical facilities for veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury; however, this designation will jeopardize other important construction projects because it is offset by a decrease in what is called the minor projects construction account. This would jeopardize an important project in my district at the Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Hospital. And if this amendment is adopted, it would hinder the expansion of McGuire's dialysis unit. This is an important project and will improve services that many veterans in the Richmond area need very desperately. So I appreciate the gentleman's intent; however, I believe that circumventing the Veterans Affairs Department's construction priorities is an inappropriate way to achieve that goal. The Nation has promised our veterans access to quality health care services, and we owe them to ensure that those services are there. So, Madam Chairman, I would urge the rejection of this amendment so that the underlying projects can go forward.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I too rise in opposition to the amendment. As it has been said before, this would jeopardize the dialysis unit in the McGuire Hospital in Richmond. Although I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's intent, I do not believe that shortchanging important projects at the VA to improve and expand quality health care for our veterans is the appropriate way to achieve that goal. We have promised our veterans health care and decreases in what is called the minor projects account will actually jeopardize important projects all over the country, including one in Richmond, Virginia. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Hopefully we can work out some other pay-for. But we do not want it taken out of the projects in Richmond, Virginia; Pennsylvania; and other projects around the country.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, to close for our side, I yield the balance of my time to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act makes several straightforward, commonsense amendments to the enforcement provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. First, this bill establishes a task force specifically dedicated to the enforcement of our lobbying laws. Although the newspapers are full of stories about lobbyists who file late, inaccurate, and incomplete reports, there has not yet been a single significant enforcement action. We believe that an institutional change is in order. The task force will receive complaints from the Clerk of the House, investigate these cases, and enforce the disclosure laws to the fullest extent. Second, this bill asks the Department of Justice to make recommendations to the Congress for additional improvements to the enforcement of lobbying disclosure laws. The ethics reform legislation we passed last Congress was an important step in bringing transparency and accountability to lobbying disclosure, but much more can and should be done. We look forward to working with Attorney General Holder to improve on the current system. Third, the bill amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to require the Attorney General to publish the names of lobbyists and lobbying firms who are sanctioned under the law. Just as we expect the Department of Justice to enforce the LDA, this bill will require the Department to be transparent about the results of their investigations and prosecutions. I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy), for her steadfast leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5751) to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require registrants to pay an annual fee of $50, to impose a penalty of $500 for failure to file timely reports required by that Act, to provide for the use of the funds from such fees and penalties for reviewing and auditing filings by registrants, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, there are fees in the title of the bill; however, in working with the minority, the bill was amended and the fees were taken out. The title did not change because of the amendments, but that's why the fees are not there because we were accommodating the minority side of the aisle.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on this side?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, is a bipartisan compromise that was negotiated and drafted by Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It then passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate by unanimous consent. The legislation will reduce the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine in Federal law from 100-to-1 down to 18-to-1. The crack penalties, under present law, for example, it only takes five grams of crack to trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, but for powder cocaine it takes 500 grams to trigger the same 5-year mandatory sentence, a 100-to-1 ratio. This disparity is particularly egregious when you consider that the Sentencing Commission has concluded that there is no pharmacological difference between the two forms of cocaine, and that 80 percent of the crack defendants are black, whereas only 30 percent of the powder cocaine defendants are black. The crack penalties also create bizarre sentences when you consider sentences such as the 24 \1/2\-year sentence given to Kimba Smith for behavior that was just inferentially involved with her boyfriend's cocaine dealing. The legislation moves the threshold amount for the 5-year mandatory minimum from five grams to one ounce, reducing the disparity from 100- to-1 to 18-to-1. The legislation does not fully eliminate the 100-to-1 disparity in sentencing for crack and powder, but it does make good progress in addressing what is widely recognized as unfair treatment of like offenders based simply on the form of cocaine they possessed. The bill also addresses another concern. Arguments are made that crack defendants are more likely to use violence or minors in the distribution, and this bill specifically requires the Sentencing Commission to significantly increase penalties for drug violations involving violence, threats of violence, or use of minors, and another long list of aggravating activities that would be involved. This way the defendant is sentenced for what he or she actually did, not the form of cocaine involved. Many organizations are supporting S. 1789, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Police Officers, the Council of Prison Locals, and several conservative religious organizations such as Prison Fellowship and the National Association of Evangelicals. And all of the civil rights organizations that one can imagine are also supporting the legislation. I would like to thank the sponsors of the Senate bill, Senators Durbin of Illinois and Sessions of Alabama, and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who came together to pass this important bipartisan legislation. There are many Members of the House who have worked tirelessly over the years to reform this disparity, including chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers; Sheila Jackson Lee; Maxine Waters; Charlie Rangel; and Mel Watt. On behalf of the organizations and Members of Congress who support S. 1789, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas who has sponsored one of the many bills on this issue and has worked hard to eliminate the disparity altogether, Ms. Jackson Lee. (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to make a brief comment. The gentleman from California just mentioned the 1986 law. We are not blaming anybody for what happened in 1986, but we have had years of experience and have determined that there is no justification for the 100-to-1 ratio. We know that's what we know now, and so we're not blaming anybody for what happened in 1986, but we are fixing what we have learned through years of experience. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not reduce the disparity from 100-to-1 to 1-to-1. It does not eliminate the mandatory minimums, but it is a step in the right direction and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1789.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for his support and the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for her strong advocacy on behalf of victims of stalking. I hope that we will pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the STALKERS Act of 2010 makes a number of changes in the United States Code with respect to the offense of stalking. It clarifies, strengthens, and enhances the current law. First it allows law enforcement to intervene in cases where a victim may not be aware of the seriousness of the threat before it's too late. The existing statute requires a person have reasonable fear of bodily injury or to undergo emotional distress. These injuries are difficult to demonstrate, often frustrating both victims and prosecutors. H.R. 5662 addresses this problem by permitting law enforcement to intervene in any event of stalking that might reasonably be expected to cause another person serious emotional distress. This small change will go a long way towards both effective law enforcement and justice for victims. Second, the bill reaches criminals who make use of new technologies to stalk their victims. It extends the law to any course of conduct in or substantially affecting interstate commerce, which will apply to cyberstalking, acts of surveillance and other forms of stalking that employ emerging technologies. Third, the bill takes several steps towards more effective enforcement of the Federal stalking statute and other stalking laws. It increases the maximum term of imprisonment by 5 years if a criminal violates a protection order or if the victim is under the age of 18 or over the age of 65. The bill also requires the Attorney General to conduct a annual study of best practices and enforcement of stalking laws nationwide. In short, this legislation updates current law to target the full range of behavior that stalkers direct towards their victims. It will help law enforcement seek justice, help victims seek closure, and increase protections of the most vulnerable amongst us. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for her hard work and advocacy on behalf of victims of stalking. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to a strong advocate for victims of stalking, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this commission will study our criminal justice system to ascertain what we can do to use our resources in a more cost-effective manner to reduce crime. We know that comprehensive approaches to crime work. In Massachusetts, they had a comprehensive approach to juvenile crime where they'd had a dozen or so murders every year. They had a comprehensive approach to the problem. They reduced juvenile murders from 13 a year to zero for 3 consecutive years. In Pennsylvania, they invested in comprehensive programs in a hundred different localities, spent $60 million, and they counted up a few years later and figured that they had saved over $300 million, five times more than they spent, because they were so effective in reducing crime and other social problems. In Virginia, they had an area where they had 19 murders one year. They came in with a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to crime reduction, and within a couple of years, they had two murders. And if you look at that $2\1/2\ million that was invested in that program, there is no doubt that we saved at least that much in reduced medical care at the Medical College of Virginia Trauma Unit. So we know that we can reduce crime and save money. We know that 700,000 prisoners are being released from prison--State, local, and Federal--every year, and we know that two-thirds of them are going right back to prison without intervention. So we need this opportunity for investments. We know that the United States' incarceration rate is number 1 in the world and is already so high that the Pew Research Center says it's counterproductive. It causes more crime than it cures. And this study will show what we can do with our resources by showing what works and what does not and how we can have an intelligent focus on crime policy. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and my colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, for their vision to create a commission to outline effective strategies to reduce crime. I would hope that we adopt the bill, create the commission, and reduce crime. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), whose district borders Canada.