[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.

                          ____________________