[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11080-S11086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 3158. A bill to establish a grant program to provide comprehensive
eye examinations to children, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Children's
Vision Improvement and Learning Readiness Act.'' I am pleased to be
joined by my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in this effort.
Vision disorders are the fourth most common disability in the United
States and the most prevalent handicapping condition among children.
This is a startling fact when one considers that eighty percent of what
children learn is acquired through vision processing information and
the quality of children's eye health has a direct impact on their
learning and achievement.
It is estimated that almost ten percent of children have clinically
significant vision impairment, which are associated with developmental
delays and the need for special education, vocational, and social
services. Specifically, studies have found that among the twenty
percent of school age children who have a learning disability in
reading, seventy percent have some form of visual impairment, such as
ocular motor, perceptual or binocular dysfunction, that could interfere
with their reading skills. The ``Children's Vision Improvement and
Learning Readiness Act'' recognizes the importance of diagnosing vision
disorders in children at an early age so as to allow intervention at a
time when these disorders are highly responsive to treatment.
Unfortunately, too many children in school today live with an
undiagnosed vision impairment and too many times these same children
have not had a comprehensive eye examination prior to entering school.
In fact, only one-third of all children have had an eye examination or
vision screening prior to entering school despite evidence that the
earlier a vision problem is diagnosed and corrected, the less the
potential negative impact it may have on a child's development.
In addition, undiagnosed visual problems impose economic costs on our
Nation. In 1995, the economic impact of visual disorders and
disabilities was approximately $38.4 billion. Yet, early, comprehensive
eye exams in children can help reduce the economic and social costs
associated with undiagnosed eye disorders. Providing comprehensive eye
examinations to children before they enter school helps to decrease
long-term medical expenditures, prevent inappropriate placement of
children in special education programs, and avoid social welfare
spending by improving children's ability to learn and achieve a greater
degree of educational and economic attainment.
The ``Children's Vision Improvement and Learning Readiness Act''
gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to
provide grants to States for a variety of educational and outreach
activities related to improving and safeguarding the eye health and
academic success of our nation's children. Grants may be used for the
development of a voluntary statewide school-based comprehensive eye
examination program for elementary school age children; the development
of State-based education programs to increase public awareness of the
benefits of comprehensive eye examinations; and the flexibility of
providing comprehensive eye examinations through other related federal
programs, such as Head Start, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Child Care Block Grant, and the Consolidated Health
Centers programs.
This important measure will help ensure that our nation's children
have access to comprehensive eye examinations from qualified health
professionals so they can start school prepared for a lifetime of
learning and achievement. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator
DeWine in supporting this legislation that will help to boost the well-
being and academic achievement of our nation's school children.
[[Page S11081]]
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 3161. A bill to provide a definition of a prevailing party for
Federal fee-shifting statutes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased today to introduce the
Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2002. This bill provides
that when plaintiffs bring a lawsuit that acts as a catalyst for a
change in position by the opposing party, they will be considered the
``prevailing party'' for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees under
Federal law. The bill will help ensure that people who are the victims
of civil rights, environmental, and worker rights' abuses can obtain
legal representation to enforce their rights.
Over the course of our history, Congress has often enacted laws
encouraging private litigants to implement public policy through our
court system. An integral part of many such laws are provisions that
help individuals obtain adequate legal representation by providing that
the defendants will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in cases where
the plaintiff prevails. In laws involving public accommodations,
housing, labor, disabilities, age discrimination, violence against
women, voting rights, pollution, and other areas, Congress has acted
over and over again to empower private litigants in their pursuit of
justice. Currently, there are over two hundred statutory fee-shifting
provisions that allow for some sort of payment of attorneys' fees to a
prevailing plaintiff.
Until last year, in interpreting these fee-shifting statutes in cases
where a settlement was reached before trial, nine circuit courts of
appeals embraced the ``catalyst theory'' to determine whether
attorneys' fees could be obtained. The catalyst theory required the
payment of fees where the lawsuit caused a change in the position or
conduct of the defendant. Only one circuit court, the Fourth Circuit,
applied a more narrow definition of prevailing party, requiring a
judgment or a court approved settlement in order for a plaintiff to
obtain attorneys' fees.
In Buckhannon Board of Care & Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department
of Health and Human Services, 2001, a case arising out of the Fourth
Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that
plaintiffs may recover attorneys' fees from defendants only if they
have been awarded relief by a court, not if they prevailed through a
voluntary change in the defendant's behavior or a private settlement.
The Buckhannon ruling eliminated the catalyst theory for all fee
shifting statutes in federal law.
The bill I introduce today restores the catalyst theory that the vast
majority of courts had approved prior to the Buckhannon decision as a
basis for seeking attorneys fees under Federal fee shifting statutes.
It provides a new definition of ``prevailing party'' for all such
statutes to encompass the common situation where defendants alter their
conduct after a lawsuit has commenced but without waiting for a court
order requiring them to do so. This critical change in the definition
of ``prevailing party'' will allow attorneys representing clients who
cannot otherwise afford to hire a lawyer to recover their costs and to
be paid a reasonable rate for their work.
The Buckhannon case itself illustrates the need for this legislation.
Buckhannon Board and Care Home in West Virginia, an operator of
assisted living residences, failed a state inspection because some
residents were incapable of ``self-preservation'' as defined by State
law. After receiving orders to close its facilities, Buckhannon sued
the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the ``self-
preservation'' requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act and
the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the lawsuit was pending but
before the court ruled, the state legislature eliminated the ``self-
preservation'' requirement.
Imagine how the plaintiffs felt when they learned that their lawsuit
had forced a change in the law not only for their own case but also for
all of the other individuals who had been subject to the improper self-
preservation doctrine. If ever there was a complete and total victory
caused by litigation, this was it. But, as Casey Stengel once said,
``It ain't over 'till it's over.'' Once the State legislature changed
the law, the District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the
case as moot and denied Buckhannon's request for attorneys' fees. The
court ruled that the legislative action did not amount to a judicially
required change in position that would permit Buckhannon to be
considered a ``prevailing party'' in the case. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied
attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs, ruling that because the change in
the defendants' conduct was voluntary rather than ordered by the court,
Buckhannon was not a prevailing party.
I believe the narrow definition of `prevailing party' endorsed by the
Buckhannon decision will result in many injustices going unchallenged.
Indeed, in calculating whether to take a case, an attorney for a
plaintiff will have to consider not only the chances of losing, but the
chances of winning too easily. If businesses or individuals are able to
engage in egregious conduct, refuse to change their behavior without a
lawsuit being filed against them, and then avoid paying attorneys' fees
by changing their conduct on the eve of trial, the effect will be that
some lawyers will decide that they cannot afford to take a case even if
the claims are very strong.
Imagine a case involving a legitimate claim of housing discrimination
where, after many months, perhaps even years of work, as the attorney
for the plaintiff prepares into the evening for opening statements, the
attorney learns that the defendant has admitted its wrongful conduct
and offered substantial compensation and a promise to change its
practices. This offer came about only because of the spotlight the
lawsuit put on the defendant and the possibility of a large jury
verdict. This would be a complete victory for the plaintiff, but under
Buckhannon, the attorney who labored for years to bring about this
result may not be paid. Later, if the same defendant returns to
discriminatory practices, the next plaintiff might very well not be
able to find competent counsel who will take the case.
Ironically, the failure to correct the Buckhannon decision could lead
to plaintiffs' attorneys dragging out law suits out far beyond a point
in time where the parties could reach a fair settlement, in order to
insure that they meet the Buckhannon definition of ``prevailing
party.'' This will increase the costs of litigation and discourage
settlement. Simply put, Buckhannon creates unnatural tensions between
attorneys and clients and may even push attorneys to not act in the
best interest of their clients.
Certainly we can do better. Congress has passed important laws to
protect the public in the work place and in our communities; we must
ensure that these laws can be enforced, when necessary, in court. The
Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2002 will help insure that
all our citizens have the ability to meaningfully challenge injustice.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Cleland,
and Mr. Edwards):
S. 3162. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance the
security of transporting high-level nuclear waste and spend nuclear
fuel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
improve the safety of nuclear waste transportation across our Nation.
This bill, the Nuclear Waste Transportation Security Act of 2002, seeks
to address the concerns raised by the Congress' decision earlier this
year to transport spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain, NV, for
underground storage. Joining me in its introduction are Senators
Cleland, Edwards, and Nelson.
I voted in favor of moving nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. My
decision was not a simple one; rather its ramifications required
serious consideration. At that time, I predicated my `yes' vote on the
waste being transported safely and securely through my home State of
Illinois and across our Nation, and I indicated that I would introduce
legislation to improve that safety and security. This is that
legislation.
The Nuclear Waste Transportation Security Act directs the Secretary
of
[[Page S11082]]
Transportation to establish a comprehensive transportation safety
program that considers terrorist threats and other potential dangers to
the safe transportation of this spent fuel. The Department of
Transportation, the regulator of these shipments, will consult with
numerous cabinet and sub-cabinet offices, including the soon to be
created Department of Homeland Security, to develop this program. After
one year, the Secretary will deliver a progress report to Congress on
the program's development and implementation.
To better assist State, local, and tribal governments in implementing
this program, our bill establishes a grant program at DOT related to
the transportation of nuclear spent fuel. First responders will be
eligible for these grants, which will emphasize frequently used routes.
The grants will be used for infrastructure improvements, drills and
training, and other activities as determined by the Secretary. DOE and
the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, FRPCC, of
FEMA will consult on the grant program. For this purpose, the bill
authorizes $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and additional funds as
necessary for fiscal years 2004 through 2012.
A key component of spent nuclear fuel transportation is ensuring the
safety and security of routes nationwide. Much of this fuel is likely
to be transported through my own State of Illinois, right through the
center of Chicago and Springfield, our State capitol. I want to be
certain that its transport does not endanger my constituents in any
way. The Department of Energy ranks Illinois seventh in truck shipments
under what is called the ``mostly truck scenario,'' and sixth in rail
shipments in the ``mostly rail scenario.'' Nearly half of Illinois'
electricity is generated from nuclear power. With seven nuclear power
plants and two nuclear research reactors Illinois produces more nuclear
waste than any other State and is home to some of the busiest
transportation corridors in the Nation. The safety of Illinoisans is at
stake. These stakes are too high for us to gamble. Safety must be a top
priority.
To ensure this safety, my bill requires that the DOT consult with
State governments in establishing routes and provide 14-days' notice to
governors of shipments through their States. The bill requires
dedicated trains for the waste with trained guards stationed at the
front and rear ends of each train. The bill provides the Secretary of
Transportation and the Director of Homeland Security with waiver
authority for national or homeland security. Under my legislation,
trains must be equipped with communication systems providing continuous
access to first responders and must be equipped with the best available
technology, including appropriate health monitoring systems. Finally,
to ensure the safe transportation of passengers and shippers on our
nation's waterways, nuclear waste shipments may not be made via the
inland waterways or on the Great Lakes unless waived for national or
homeland security purposes. This is critical to adequately protect
these important natural resources.
Once the infrastructure is established and the routing determined,
employees must be certified to handle any such emergencies that may
result from this transportation and to mitigate their impact on local
populations. My bill amends certification requirements for hazmat
employees, requiring that certification be renewed every three years.
Currently, this certification, without renewals, is required by
regulation but not codified in statute.
The bill directs hazmat employers to submit training programs to DOT
for review and approval and expands the definition of covered employees
to include those who may be among the first responders to an accident
but who do not receive training under current regulations. To provide
funding for this additional training, the bill reauthorizes the
training grant program for hazmat instructors who train hazmat
employees, and enables it to cover hazmat employee training as well.
Appropriations are authorized at $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and
for such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2004-2012.
The maximum civil penalties for violating hazmat laws regarding
radioactive materials are increased from $25,000 to $100,000.
As a means of involving the public in these decisions affecting
safety and security, the bill establishes a public outreach program to
protect public health and safety. The program will be developed by FEMA
in coordination with other agencies. In addition, the bill requires the
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct a
study and report to Congress regarding the effects on public health of
routine transportation of nuclear waste and accidents involving its
transportation. The report is due one year after the date of enactment.
Especially important to my legislation is the establishment of
requirements for casks. Also known as packages, these casks contain the
spent nuclear fuel that is being shipped. The bill requires the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which has authority over the casks, to execute a
comprehensive testing program in conjunction with DOT and DHS, and
requires them to conduct a survey of potential terrorist and other
threats that may be posed to casks. The NRC and DOT must jointly
certify the safety of the casks, which must be designed to handle head-
on collisions at any speed at which they will be transported, attempted
puncture by armor-piercing ammunition, falls of the maximum distance to
which the package could fall on likely routes, submersion in water to
the maximum depth to which the package could be submerged, continuous
exposure to the maximum temperature to which the package is likely to
be subjected in an event involving fire, and other threats that may be
identified. The agencies involved in this effort must report to
Congress every two years on these activities.
Finally, the bill amends current statute to exclude DOT and NRC
contractors from participating on the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board and enables the Board to review the activities of the DOT and NRC
and to obtain documents from them as part of its existing investigative
powers. This provision will prevent any conflicts of interest between
the reviewers and implementers of this law. The Board's termination
date is extended from one year after nuclear waste begins to be
deposited at a national repository to 10 years after such waste begins
to be deposited.
I believe that our legislation alleviates many of the concerns of
shippers, hazmat employees, the federal government, and affected
citizens regarding the transportation of nuclear spent fuel across our
Nation. In the course of its development, we consulted with shippers,
railroads, labor unions, the nuclear industry, federal regulators, the
environmental community, and our colleagues in the Senate. The bill
seeks to address the real threats we face and to take economic and
safety concerns into account, with the primary goal of increasing the
safety and security of these materials during their transportation to
Yucca Mountain. I appreciate the assistance that these groups have
provided. I remain open to their further input and look forward to
working with them to enact this critical legislation.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues,
Senator Durbin, Senator Edwards and Senator Cleland in introducing the
Nuclear Waste Transportation Security Act.
Ensuring the safe and secure transportation of our high-level nuclear
waste across this country is of paramount importance. The greatest
concern I had voting for the Yucca Mountain Resolution was the safe
transportation of our waste to Yucca.
This piece of legislation is the first step in what I see as
Congress' ongoing duty to oversee and evaluate our Nation's transport
of nuclear waste.
Specifically, this bill directs the Department of Transportation to
develop and carry out a comprehensive safety program that considers,
among other things, terrorist threats.
State and Federal cooperation is required. States must be consulted
by DOT in making routing decisions and notified when shipments are
traveling through their State.
Dedicated trains, armed escorts and state of the art communication
systems must be employed.
Full-scale testing of casks to withstand the maximum temperature,
water depth and piercing likely to be encountered must also be carried
out.
[[Page S11083]]
The EPA and CDC must conduct a study and report to Congress on the
effects, if any, on public health of routine transportation of nuclear
waste and accidents involving the transportation of nuclear waste.
And, the Federal Emergency Management Agency must administer a public
outreach program on nuclear waste to educate the public on appropriate
means of responding to an accident or attack involving high-level
nuclear waste.
Employing the expertise of the DOT, NRC, FEMA, EPA and CDC to protect
the American people from any potential danger posed by nuclear waste
transport is the aim and goal of this legislation and I hope my
colleagues will support it.
The first shipments of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain will not take
place until 2010. We need to use the time between now and then to
ensure that the transportation system that will carry this waste is a
safe as it can possibly be.
______
By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 3163. A bill to establish a grant program to enable institutions
of higher education to improve schools of education; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 3164. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve
the loan forgiveness program for child care providers, including
preschool teachers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 3165. A bill to provide loan forgiveness to social workers who
work for child protective agencies; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 3166. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
loan forgiveness for attorneys who represent low-income families or
individuals involved in the family or domestic relations court systems;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3167. A bill to provide grants to States and outlying areas to
encourage the States and outlying areas to enhance existing or
establish new statewide coalitions among institutions of higher
education, communities around the institutions, and other relevant
organization or groups, including anti-drug or anti-alcohol coalitions,
to reduce underage drinking and illicit drug-use by students, both on
and off campus; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I join several of my colleagues today to
introduce a series of bills related to the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act, HEA. These five bills emphasize a number of
issues that are vital to higher education, including teacher quality;
loan forgiveness for social workers, family lawyers, and early
childhood teachers; and the reduction of drug use and underage drinking
at our colleges and universities.
The quality of a student's education is the direct result of the
quality of that student's teachers. If we don't have well trained
teachers, then future generations of our children will not be well
educated. That is why I am introducing a bill that would provide $200
million in grants to our schools of education to partner with local
schools to ensure that our teachers are receiving the best, most,
extensive training available before they enter the classroom.
The Secretary of Education's annual report on teacher quality
reported that a majority of graduates of schools of education believe
that the traditional teacher preparation program left them ill prepared
for the challenges and rigors of the classroom. Part of the
responsibility for this lies in the hands of our schools of education.
However, Congress also has a responsibility to give our schools of
education the tools they need to make necessary improvements. This new
bill would create a competitive grant program for schools of education,
which partner with low income schools to create clinical programs to
train teachers. Additionally, it would require schools of education to
make internal changes by working with other departments at the
university to ensure that teachers are receiving the highest quality
education in core academic subjects. Finally, it would require the
college or university to demonstrate a commitment to improving their
schools of education by providing matching funds.
Another complex issue affecting the teaching force is the high
percentage of disillusioned beginning teachers who leave the field. Our
bill would help combat this issue, as well. Schools of education
receiving these grants would be responsible for following their
graduates and continuing to provide assistance after they enter the
classroom. The more we invest in the education of teachcers especially
once they have entered the profession the more likely they will remain
in the classroom.
Today, I also would like to reintroduce the Early Care and Education
Loan Forgiveness Act that Senator Wellstone and I had included in the
last higher education reauthorization bill. We had been working on this
legislation together before Paul's tragic death. I know he cared deeply
about this issue and about making sure that all children receive a
quality education. He was passionate about that. And, in his memory, I
would like to rename our bill the ``Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan
Forgiveness Act.''
This bill would expand the loan forgiveness program so that it
benefits not just childcare workers, but also early childhood
educators. This loan forgiveness program would serve as an incentive to
keep those educators in the field for longer periods of time.
Paul Wellstone knew how important early learning programs are in
preparing our children for kindergarten and beyond. Research shows that
children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were
three or four years old scored better on math, language arts, and
social skills in early elementary school than children who attended
poor quality childcare programs. In short, children in early learning
programs with high quality teachers, teachers with a bachelor's degree
or an associate's degree or higher, do substantially better.
When we examine the number and recent growth of pre-primary education
programs, it becomes difficult to differentiate between early education
and childcare settings because they are so often intertwined,
especially considering that 11.9 million children younger than age five
spend part of their time with a care provider other than a parent and
demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more mothers
enter the workforce.
Because the bill targets loan forgiveness to those educators working
in low-income schools or childcare settings, we can make significant
strides toward providing high quality education for all of our young
children, regardless of socioeconomic status. The bill would serve a
two-fold function. First, it would reward professionals for their
training. Second, it would encourage professionals to remain in the
profession over longer periods of time, since more time in the
profession leads to higher percentages of loans forgiveness. The bill
would result in more educated individuals with more teaching experience
and lower turnover rates, each of which enhances student performance.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure that
truly no children, especially our youngest children, are left behind.
I also am working on two bills with my friend and colleagues from
West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller. These bills would provide loan
forgiveness to students who dedicate their careers to working in the
realm of child welfare, including social workers, who work for child
protective services, and family law experts.
Currently, there aren't enough social workers to fill available jobs
in child welfare today. Furthermore, the number of social work job
openings is expected to increase faster than the average for all
occupations through 2010. The need for highly qualified social workers
in the child protective services is reaching crisis level.
We also need more qualified individuals focusing on family law. The
wonderful thing about family law is its
[[Page S11084]]
focus on rehabilitation, that is the rehabilitation of families by
helping them through life's transitions, whether it is a family going
through a divorce, a family dealing with their troubled teenager in the
juvenile system, or a child getting adopted and becoming a member of a
new family.
Across the United States, family, juvenile, and domestic relations
courts are experiencing a shortage of qualified attorneys. As many of
my colleagues and I know, law school is an expensive investment. In the
last 20 years, tuition has increased more than 200 percent. Currently,
the average rate of law school debt is about $80,000 per graduate. To
be sure, few law school graduates can afford to work in the public
sector because debts prevent even the most dedicated public service
lawyer from being able to take these low-paying jobs. This results in a
shortage of family lawyers.
The shortage of family law attorneys also disproportionately impacts
juveniles. The lack of available representation causes children to
spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or postponed
when they simply cannot find an attorney to represent their rights or
those of the parent or guardian. Furthermore, the number of children
involved in the court system is sharply increasing. We need to make
sure the interests of these children are taken care of by making sure
they have an advocate, someone working solely on their behalf.
By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to purpose careers in
the child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified
and dedicate individuals who work in the realm of child welfare and
family law.
Finally, I am introducing a bill today with my friend and colleague
from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, that would help address an
epidemic, the epidemic of underage drinking, binge drinking, and drug-
related problems on college and university campuses across the United
States. Our bill would provide grants to states to establish statewide
partnerships among colleges and universities and the surrounding
communities to work together to reduce underage and binge drinking and
illicit drug use by students.
According to a study by Boston University, over 1,400 students aged
18-24 died in 1998 from alcohol-related injuries, more than 600,000
students were assaulted by another student, and another 500,000 were
unintentionally injured while under the influence of alcohol. According
to a 1999 Harvard University study, 40 percent of college students are
binge drinkers and according to the Department of Health and Human
Services, nearly 10.5 million current drinkers were under the legal age
of 21, and of these, over 5 million were binge drinkers.
Currently, 28 States, including my home State of Ohio, have
coalitions that deal specifically with the culture of alcohol and drug
abuse on our Nation's college campuses. They work with the surrounding
communities, including local residents, bar, restaurant and shop
owners, and law enforcement officials, toward a goal of changing the
pervasive culture of drug and alcohol abuse. They provide alternative
alcohol-free events, as well as support groups for those who choose not
to drink. They also educate students about the dangers of alcohol and
drug-use.
Furthermore, the coalitions recognize that while it is important to
promote an alcohol aware and drug-free campus community, if the
community surrounding the campus does not promote these initiatives,
there will be no long-term solutions. Therefore, these coalitions also
have worked to establish regulations both on and off campus, which will
help our nation's youth to stay healthy, alive, and get the most out of
their time at college. Some of these regulations include the
registration of kegs. This provides accountability for both the store
and the student. This is just an example of one step that colleges,
local communities, and organizations can take.
To help start the expansion of these coalitions, our bill would
provide $50 million dollars in grants. This is an important
demonstration project that would help lead to positive effects for our
young people. It is up to us to change the culture, which has been
perpetuated by years of complacency and a dismissal tone of ``that's
just the way it is in college.'' We must protect the health and
education of our young people by changing this culture of abuse--and
that is exactly what this bill would do.
Next year when we consider the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act, I encourage my colleagues to join in support of these
initiatives.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 3168. A bill to improve funeral home, cemetery, and crematory
inspections systems to establish consumer protections relating to
funeral service contracts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Death
Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2002, a bill which I believe will
go a long way in restoring the trust that Americans place in the
funeral and death care industries.
None of us like to think about death and dying. It is a painful and
uncomfortable subject, and most Americans, understandably, choose not
to confront matters related to the death of a loved one until the death
actually occurs. And when a loved one does pass on, we turn to our
friends and family to grieve. Certainly, the last thing anyone wants to
do at such a painful time is to spend hours or days negotiating or
shopping for a funeral, casket, or other goods and services. Instead,
we leave most of these arrangements in the hands of funeral service
providers, turning to them to ensure that our loved ones are cared for
and treated with respect and dignity after their passing.
We place a great deal of trust in funeral service providers. A
funeral, after all, represents one of the largest purchases many
consumers will ever make, just behind a home, college education, and a
car. However, unlike these transactions, the purchase of funeral
services is most often done under intense emotional duress, with very
little time to spare, and without the benefit of the type of consumer
information generally available when making such a large purchase. As a
result, we trust funeral service providers to give us fair prices, to
represent goods and services accurately, and to not take advantage of
us during our moments of greatest grief and vulnerability.
For the most part, this trust is well deserved. I have no doubt, that
the majority of individuals working in the funeral industry are good
men and women who practice their profession with the honor and gravity
it demands. However, recent revelations of abuses in the industry have
shown us that not all members of the death care industry are honest and
upstanding. We all remember hearing, earlier this year of the discovery
of over 200 bodies strewn in the woods near a crematorium in Noble, GA.
There is also recent evidence of desecration of graves and remains at
cemeteries in Florida, California, Hawaii, and my own State of
Connecticut. These incidents, as well as developments in the funeral
industry as a whole, compel us to reexamine the regulatory structure we
currently have in place for this industry.
Currently, the death care industry is regulated by a patchwork of
State and local laws. These regulations may have been sufficient years
ago, but the character of the industry has changed substantially since
many of these laws were passed. The industry has become surprisingly
large and diverse. Today, the death care industry generates annual
revenues of over $15 billion and employ over 104,000 Americans. The
1990s saw the rise of multi-state ``consolidators'' who purchased local
funeral homes across the country. Even for small local firms, the
business has become increasingly complex. As more and more Americans
travel and live in places far from where they were born, the industry
has become one that frequently does business across State and county
lines.
There have also been changes in Americans' cultural expectations of
funeral services. For example, the percentage of cremations has risen
from 5 percent in the 1970s to 25 percent today. However, only 12
States have substantive laws which cover cremation. In fact, in the
case in Georgia I mentioned earlier, the crematorium in question was
statutorily exempt from inspection, allowing the abuses to continue
undiscovered.
[[Page S11085]]
The only significant Federal regulation of the industry exists in the
Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule, promulgated nearly 20 years
ago. Again, this rule has not kept up with the nature of the industry.
Perhaps most importantly, the rule does not cover numerous sectors of
the industry such as cemeteries, crematories, and casket makers. It
also does not effectively regulate prepaid funeral contracts, which
have become an increasingly popular option in recent years.
Earlier this year, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on
Children and Families in which we examined developments in the industry
and how they have impacted American families. Since that hearing, I
have worked with both consumer and industry groups to craft legislation
to protect Americans from potential abuse by funeral service providers.
The Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2002 would
provide Federal funding to allow States to hire and train inspectors
and give consumers the right to legal action against those who violate
regulatory standards. In order to be eligible for funding, states would
have to adhere to standards which are outlined in the legislation. The
act would also codify and strengthen the existing FTC regulations
governing licensing and registration, recordkeeping, inspection,
resolution of consumer complaints, and enforcement of State laws in the
industry. It would clarify regulations to prevent deceptive trade
practices in the industry and ensure that consumers can make informed
decisions as they make funeral arrangements. Finally, the FTC rules
would be expanded to cover all segments of the death care industry.
I am aware that as we are in the closing days of this Congress, the
Senate will not have the opportunity to consider this legislation this
year. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise this
issue with colleagues today in the hope that we will be able to move on
this issue when we reconvene for the 108th Congress. This legislation
is bipartisan. A House companion bill is being sponsored by
Representative Foley of Florida. He has been a leader in the effort to
ensure that dignity and respect prevail in all aspects of death care
services. I look forward to working with him and all of our colleagues
in the 108th Congress to advance this same worthy objective.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 3169. A bill to provide for military charters between military
installations and local school districts, to provide credit enhancement
initiatives to promote military charter school facility acquisition,
construction, and renovation, and for other purposed; to the committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to offer a bill which addresses a
growing population who seek a distinct supportive voice: our military
dependent children.
Education is an issue which many Senators on both sides of the aisle
have worked very hard to improve in every State in our union. This
bill, however, is unique in that it strives to increase the quality of
education for hundreds of thousands of our children of members of the
Armed Services by catering to their specific needs and frequent moves.
Let me begin by expressing my thanks to most members of this body for
always working diligently to introduce and pass great initiatives for
education. I firmly believe that we, at this juncture in our Nation's
great history, have continued to bring family issues, such as education
and the economy to the forefront of our discussion. Further, amid our
continued discussion of the possibility of sending our military men and
women into harm's way in Iraq, there is no better time to concentrate
on their children, children who have the added burden of worrying about
a deployed parent, or who must move to a new school many times as their
parent or parents move to new assignments around the country.
This bill, I am proposing, will provide Stable Transitions I
Education for our Active Duty Youth. It is called the STEADY Act and is
the first step to a smoother educational career for military dependent
children.
When I last spoke of this bill, I said that we in ``Congress are
becoming wiser and wiser on the issue of education'' by recognizing
that our future and our economy depend on the education of our
children.
It truly is an issue of strengthening our Nation. We cannot have an
economically strong and militarily secure Nation moving in a
progressive way without an excellent school system. No matter where a
child is born, rural or urban, on the east coast or west coast, if we
do not do a better job as a Nation of giving our children a quality
education, the future of our Nation will not be as bright, and it could
put us in jeopardy.
I also make the argument that for our military, the same holds true.
it is not just about providing our military with the most extraordinary
weapons. it is not just about training our military men and women tot
he highest levels. It is not just providing them the basics.
We have an obligation to recognize that when our men and women sign
up to be in our military, they have willingly made sacrifices, but
their families' quality of life should not be one of those sacrifices.
We need to provide them, between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Education, a quality education for their children.
When we send our soldiers into battle, we want them focused on the
battle and mission at hand. We do not want them worried, as they
naturally would be, about spouses and dependents at home, about their
happiness, about their comfort, about their security. It makes our
military stronger when we provide good, quality-of-life initiatives for
their families at home. One of the ways we can do that is by improving
the schools for military dependents. There are over 800,000 children
who are military dependents out of an overall force strength of 1.4
million adults connected to the military. Many of them are school-age
children. Because of the specific demands of our military, which are
very unlike the civilian sector, many move every 2 years. Some military
members move from the east coast to the west coast, moving families
with them. it is very difficult providing an excellent education
generally, and yet the military has even more challenges.
What is the solution? I offer this bill to strengthen our military
schools in the United States in a creative way. This bill will set up
the a pilot program to help create military charter schools around the
Nation in partnership with local public school systems to provide an
opportunity not only for our military dependents, but this framework
will also help communities who have a large military presence. The
benefit overall is that the community gets a better school, a school
that has the opportunity to provide an excellent education, while being
extremely flexible to accommodate the unique needs of a military
dependent student.
The second benefit is that it gives children whose families might not
have any connection to the military, an introduction into who military
people and what military life can be like.
This is a partnership. It is a pilot program that will help establish
charter schools, will give important consideration to military children
as they move from community to community, and will create for the first
time what we call an academic passport.
An academic passport will help to stabilize and standardize the
curriculum without micromanaging, without dictating what the curriculum
should be. It sets up a new approach or a new framework for our local
elementary and secondary schools throughout the country to set up a
standardized curriculum to address the vast peaks and valleys
encountered by military dependent students as they move from one
district to another. To illustrate: one school district might require 3
years of a foreign language or 2 years of algebra or 1 year of algebra,
or a whole different curriculum. That is part of this bill. It is
something about which military families feel very strongly. I hope that
with this new pilot program to help create charter schools with a new
academic passport, we can begin to focus some of our resources, again,
not all within the Department of Defense; some of this is within the
jurisdiction of the Department of Education, to create something
exciting and wonderful for these 800,000 children.
Madam President, 600,000 of these children are in public schools
today, at
[[Page S11086]]
great stress to those public districts; 100,000 of these children are
either in private schools or are home schooled; and only 32,000 of the
800,000 are in Department of Defense schools. These schools are
concentrated in a few States. There are only 32,000 children, as I
said, of 800,000 dependents in DDESS schools in New York, Kentucky,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama.
As my colleagues can see, dependent children of military personnel
are in public schools throughout the country. Sometimes they are good
public schools; sometimes they are not so good. We are working hard to
make every public school excellent, but I think we have a special
obligation to our military families to make sure that those children,
with the added burdens they face, are getting an excellent education.
If you look at the general population, non-officers in our military,
91.5 percent have a high school degree or GED, 91 percent. In our
general population, it is about 80 percent. This is a very upwardly
mobile group of Americans. Theses are men and women with great
discipline, great patriotism, great commitment to the Nation.
Obviously, they are serving their country, but they are committed to
their families, their communities, and their education.
As one can see, the officers exceed the general population at large.
Almost 40 percent have advanced degrees; 99 percent or more have
bachelor degrees. This is also a very upwardly mobile population. If we
can provide excellent schools and opportunities for the children of
this 91 percent, I think we will be doing a very good job in helping to
strengthen our military but also helping our country be a better place.
It is truly something on which we should focus more.
In conclusion, let me tell you of a school of which I am very proud.
It might be one of the first military charters, if not the first, in
the Nation. This is a school which opened in September and is an even
larger success than we anticipated. This is a state-of-the-art, brand
new charter school in Plaquemines Parish, which serves the military and
civilian community there. It has alleviated a huge burden on the local
school district, and is ready for its first expansion.
I think we can work all day long on pay raises, on building more
ships, on buying more tanks, and on building a stronger Air Force, but
truly I think focusing on educational opportunities for military
dependent children, will help us build morale, help us improve
retention, will help us strengthen our military in the intermediate and
the long term, and it is something that, with a little creativity, a
little bit of thinking outside of the box, I am convinced we could
finance the construction of these schools through means laid out in the
bill, and end up coming out with some excellent facilities around this
Nation to serve both our military and our nonmilitary families and do a
great job for our Defense Department and a great job for our country.
That is what this bill would accomplish: again, it sets up a pilot
program to establish military charter schools in the neediest areas of
the Nation. I would hope that it would be met with enthusiasm from my
colleagues who consistently support good education initiatives, and
from all of us who know the value of military service to our great
Nation.
``Every few years you make new friends, Then you're gone. You do it
all the time. I keep in touch. My best friend and I email, and write
back and forth.''--Military dependent student.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Lott):
S.J. Res. 53. A joint resolution relative to the convening of the
first session of the One Hundred Eighth Congress; considered and
passed.
S.J. Res. 53
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
first regular session of the One Hundred Eighth Congress
shall begin at noon on Tuesday, January 7, 2003.
____________________