[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3883-S3902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 637. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the first $2,000 of health insurance premiums to be fully deductible; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Health 
Insurance Tax Relief Act to help our Nation's working families deal 
with the recent dramatic increases in health care costs. The 
legislation would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $2000 in out-of-
pocket health insurance costs per year.
  While this small Federal contribution to assist families with the 
health care costs they bear will not solve all of the problems in our 
health care system, it will provide immediate help for working families 
who have seen health care costs explode. In 2001, the last year for 
which we have data, the cost of health care for employer sponsored 
insurance rose 11 percent. To deal with this increase, 75 percent of 
large employers and 42 percent of small business employers said they 
were likely to increase employee premium costs.
  In addition, according to the Center for Health System Change, 
employers will likely be raising deductibles and co-payments and 
perhaps using more coinsurance, where patients pay a percentage of the 
cost of their care rather than a fixed dollar amount. And, some 
businesses are dropping health insurance benefits entirely.
  This is an issue of fairness. We already provide a tax break for 
small business owners who provide health insurance, and we also provide 
one for individuals who are self-employed. But currently there is no 
provision that allows for employees, who are faced with additional 
financial responsibility for their premium costs, to take a tax 
deduction on their out-of-pocket expenses. This legislation rectifies 
that unfairness and will help families meet rising health care costs.
  The need for this legislation is particularly important for employees 
in small businesses, many of which sought to minimize premium increases 
by adding or increasing deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance. But 
this shifting of health insurance costs from employers to employees is 
not limited to small firms. The California Public Employees' Retirement 
System, CalPERS, the second-largest purchaser of health care after the 
Federal Government, approved a 25 percent increase in health insurance 
premiums for 2003. CalPERS provides retirement and health benefit 
services to more than 1.3 million members and nearly 2,500 employers. 
These are hard working Americans struggling to make ends meet in a weak 
economy.
  That is why, we should provide some targeted assistance to help 
families pay for health care. I urge my colleagues to support my 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Wyden, 
        Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Kerry):
  S. 639. A bill to designate certain Federal land in the State of Utah 
as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce America's Red 
Rock Wilderness Act. This legislation is in keeping with our Nation's 
bipartisan commitment to preserve our natural heritage. The 
preservation of our Nation's vital natural resources will be one of our 
most important legacies.
  Unfortunately, remaining wilderness areas are increasingly threatened 
and degraded by oil and gas development, mining, claims of rights of 
way, logging and off-road vehicles. America's Red Rock Wilderness Act 
will designate 9.1 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management, BLM, in Utah as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. 
Wilderness designation will preserve the land's wilderness character, 
along with the values associated with that wilderness--scenic beauty, 
solitude, wildlife, geological features, archaeological sites, and 
other features of scientific, educational, and historical value.
  America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will provide wilderness protection 
for red rock cliffs offering spectacular vistas of rare rock 
formations, canyons and desert lands, important archaeological sites, 
and habitat for rare plant and animal species.
  Volunteers took detailed inventories of thousands of square miles of 
BLM land in Utah to help determine which lands should be protected. 
These volunteers provided extensive documentation to ensure that these 
areas meet federal wilderness criteria.
  The BLM also completed a re-inventory of approximately 6 million 
acres of Federal land in the same area. The results provide a 
convincing confirmation that the areas designated for protection under 
this bill meet Federal wilderness criteria.
  For more than twenty years Utah conservationists have been working to 
add the last great blocks of undeveloped BLM-administered land in Utah 
to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The lands we propose to 
protect surround and connect eight of Utah's nine national park, 
monument and recreation areas. These proposed BLM wilderness areas 
easily equal their neighboring national parklands in scenic beauty, 
opportunities for recreation, and ecological importance. Yet, unlike 
the parks, most of these scenic treasures lack any form of long-term 
protection.
  I'd like to thank all of my colleagues who are original cosponsors of 
this

[[Page S3884]]

measure this year, many of whom have supported the bill since it was 
first introduced. The original cosponsors of the measure are Senators 
Feingold, Leahy, Harkin, Kennedy, Bayh, Cantwell, Corzine, Wyden, 
Stabenow, Reed, Schumer, Boxer, and Kerry. Additionally, I would like 
to thank The Utah Wilderness Coalition, which includes The Wilderness 
Society and Sierra Club; The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; and all 
of the other national, regional and local, hard-working groups who, for 
years, have championed this legislation.
  Theodore Roosevelt once stated, ``The Nation behaves well if it 
treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the 
next generation increased and not impaired in value.'' Enactment of 
this legislation will help us realize Roosevelt's vision. In order to 
protect these precious resources in Utah for future generations, I urge 
my colleagues to support America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the 
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of 
legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land 
Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness.
  I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some 
of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator 
Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas 
from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes 
outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness 
unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed 
the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down 
the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the 
Emery County government.
  I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all 
because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the 
marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM 
lands of Southern Utah.
  Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the 
broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in 
Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness 
legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those 
lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill 
encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. 
Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the 
benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving 
lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the 
former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that 
Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which 
were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin 
believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of 
Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but 
also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands 
under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
  The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of 
Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents 
have described these lands as places of solitude, special family 
moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the 
Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining 
wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and 
always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock 
of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin 
include some of the last of our country's wilderness which is not fully 
protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this 
circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those 
national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a 
treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to 
bestow to our children.''

  I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish 
that goal. Identical in its designations to legislation sponsored in 
the other body by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, it is the 
culmination of more than 17 years and five Congresses of effort in the 
other body beginning with the legislative work of our recent deceased 
colleague, the former Congressman from Utah, Mr. Owens.
  The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by 
any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct 
terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, 
canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado 
Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands 
also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the 
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to 
all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to 
hunters.
  Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I 
am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin 
would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on 
September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could 
see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He 
continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to 
act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight 
over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti-
environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove 
restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid 
areas.''
  Wisconsinites are watching this test cane closely. I believe, that 
Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a 
sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of 
natural resources. For example, some in my home state believe that 
among federal lands that comprise the Apostle Islands National 
Lakeshore and the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests there are 
lands that are deserving of wilderness protection. These federal 
properties are incredibly important, and they mean a great deal to the 
people of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want to know that, should additional 
lands in Wisconsin be brought forward for wilderness designation, the 
type of protection they expect from federal law is still available to 
be extended because it had been properly extended to other places of 
national significance.
  What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some 
in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, 
wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. 
Legislation to protect existing wilderness insures that future 
generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which 
is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by 
extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly 
codify that expectation and promise.
  Third, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the 
support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be 
protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the 
federal government for the people of the United States. Thus, while 
they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to 
the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans.
  Finally, I support this bill because I believe that there will likely 
be action during this Congress to develop consensus legislation to 
protect the lands contained in this proposal. We all need to be 
involved in helping to forge that consensus in order to ensure the best 
stewardship of that land. As many in this body know, the BLM has 
completed a review of the lands designated in the bill sponsored in the 
106th Congress by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and adjacent 
areas. BLM has found that 5.8 million acres of lands, slightly more 
than the acreage of the old bill, meet the criteria for wilderness 
protection under the Wilderness Act. While the re-inventory is not a 
formal recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation, it 
suggests that there are and should be more lands in play as the debate 
over wilderness protection in Utah moves forward.
  I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to 
protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues as a 
cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act. It designates 9.1 million 
acres of Federal public lands in Utah, managed by

[[Page S3885]]

the Bureau of Land Management, as a wilderness area under the 1964 
Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation affords lands an extra level of 
protection--preserving the land in its ``wild'' state for future 
generations.
  I know that citizens all across America, including many in Iowa, have 
enjoyed the wilderness in Redrock. Or some folks may never have visited 
that great place and just want it to be protected because it is so 
precious.
  The redrock canyons of Utah are famous, even to many who have never 
been there. The dramatic cliff walls, sculpted by wind and water into 
swirling crimson towers have been captured in stunning photographs. 
Pink sandstone arches stretch across creek beds and gold-toned crevices 
slice through massive slabs of rock. These are refreshing sights we 
must save for generations to come.
  And we must preserve Redrock for its invaluable wildlife. For 
example, some of Utah's last healthy populations of longhorn antelope 
and bighorn and sheep roam this isolated and majestic desert landscape.
  Thanks to the Bush administration's rush to turn over public land for 
energy production, this unspoiled place is now in grave danger. The 
Interior Department has fast-tracked oil and gas leases and projects, 
opening the door to habitat destruction, road building, and industrial 
pollution. These precious lands should not be the target of energy 
production when we have bountiful sources of renewable energy, 
including sources from agriculture that can also help farmers and rural 
communities.
  At a time when the administration is willfully neglecting our public 
lands by rejecting adequate funding for them, proposing oil and gas 
development in them, and increasing destructive logging practices, we 
need to protect these areas from such assaults.
  Utah's unique Redrock Wilderness area should be designated as 
wilderness and protected from environmentally destructive activity. I 
am proud to be a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act, and urge my 
colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S. 640. A bill to amend subchapter III of chapter 83 and chapter 84 
of title 5, United States Code, to include Federal prosecutors within 
the definition of a law enforcement officer, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with my good friends 
Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski and Senator Durbin, the Federal 
Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2003. This bill would 
correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby Federal 
prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits 
than other nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal 
justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given 
to Assistant United States Attorneys by including them as ``law 
enforcement officers'', LEOs, under the Federal Employees' Retirement 
System and the Civil Service Retirement System. The bill would also 
allow the Attorney General to designate other attorneys employed by the 
Department of Justice who act primarily as criminal prosecutors as 
LEO's for purposes of receiving these retirement benefits.
  The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs 
is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant 
United States Attorneys, AUSAs, and other Federal prosecutors are not 
eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast 
majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This 
exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States 
Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee 
whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or 
detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating federal 
law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  8331(20) & 8401(17). AUSAs and other 
federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, 
interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, 
debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements 
and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which 
fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement 
officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought to into the criminal 
justice system, the person with whom they have the most face-to-face 
contact, and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the 
Federal prosecutor.
  Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and 
other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many 
criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as 
pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants, 
cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they 
are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the 
criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for 
threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous 
incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made 
against federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant 
disruption of their personal and family lives.
  Only recently a veteran Federal prosecutor in the Western District of 
Washington was murdered in his home, and, although the crime remains 
unsolved, based upon the facts of the case the authorities have 
referred to the crime as a hit. In addition, I have received many other 
accounts from Federal prosecutors regarding specific threats to which 
they and their families have been subjected because of the performance 
of their duties. Federal prosecutors have written to me that they have 
been forced to relocate themselves and their families due to death 
threats; that they have been assaulted; that they and their families 
have been followed by members of criminal organizations; that have been 
forced to install security systems at their homes and to change their 
routes to and from the office to protect their safety and the safety of 
their families.
  As our fight against terrorism continues, Federal prosecutors arel on 
the front lines once again as the symbols of our criminal justice 
system, and unfortunately therefore the targets of those who seek its 
downfall. Among other tasks, the Attorney General has designated AUSA's 
to play a major role working with police and Federal agents in each 
judicial district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force. One Federal prosecutor 
wrote to me stating that shortly after his name was in the local news 
as heading his district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force and he had spoken 
to his family about taking suitable precautions, that his young son 
came into his bedroom one night holding a hockey stick for protection 
asking about their safety. Thus, Federal prosecutors and their families 
will deal more than ever with a level of stress and danger that 
justifies their being treated as LEOs.
  Another example of the danger facing Federal prosecutors appeared in 
the USA Today earlier this month. That article, which I ask unanimous 
consent to make part of the Congressional Record, reports that United 
States Attorney's will also be asked to play an advisory role in 
potential hostilities with Iraq. If there was ever an illustration of 
the importance of granting Federal prosecutors equal retirement status 
as their other law enforcement partners, this is it.
  Enhanced retirement benefits are also justified by the Federal 
Government's need for experienced prosecutors to bring ever more 
sophisticated cases under increasingly complex Federal criminal laws. 
In recent years, we have seen the growth of complex Federal 
prosecutions to combat the threats posed by organized crime, drug 
cartels, terrorist groups and other sophisticated criminals. The 
prosecution of such difficult cases is best handled by experienced 
prosecutors. It is therefore in the public interest to provide 
reasonable financial incentives for talented, experienced prosecutors 
to remain in government service.
  This bill would make Assistant United States Attorneys and other 
Federal prosecutors designated by the Attorney General eligible for 
immediate, unreduced retirement benefits at age 50 with 20 years of 
service. For example, prosecutors who are covered by the Civil Service 
Retirement System would receive 50 percent of the average of their 
three highest years' salary. At

[[Page S3886]]

the same time, it would exempt prosecutors from the mandatory 
retirement provisions that require other law enforcement officers to 
retire at age 57. Because the loss of physical strength and agility 
does not adversely affect a person's ability to function as a 
prosecutor, there is no reason to mandate early retirement.
  Two important features of this bill will contain its costs. First, 
the bill provides that incumbent Federal prosecutors are themselves 
responsible for making up the difference in individual contributions 
owed to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund for their 
prior service. An incumbent has the choice of making up this difference 
either by making a payment up front or by accepting a reduction in 
retirement benefits. Second, government contributions for the prior 
service of incumbents are made ratably over a ten-year period under 
this bill. Thus, payments for prior government contributions are spread 
out to lessen the financial impact. These two provisions will insure 
that the cost of the bill is kept well within reason.
  This bill enjoys broad, grass roots support. When Senator Hatch and I 
introduced this same bill in the last Congress, I received literally 
hundreds of letters supporting this bill, sent from over 40 states, 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The bill also enjoys support in 
the law enforcement community. The National Association of Assistant 
United States Attorneys, the Federal Criminal Investigators 
Association, and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association have 
all wrote me to voice support for the inclusion of AUSAs in the 
definition of an LEO. I tried, with Senator Hatch, to include this 
measure in our Department of Justice Authorization legislation in the 
last Congress, but the House would not agree to its inclusion in the 
conference report. I hope that we can work together in both houses to 
enact the bill in this Congress.
  In addition, I know that other Senators, including Senator Mikulski, 
are considering additional measures to expand these same retirement 
benefits to other Federal employees who perform law enforcement 
functions, including IRS employees whose primary duty is to collect 
delinquent taxes. I cosponsored such a measure in the last Congress, 
and I continue to support and commend her leadership in bringing these 
matters to the forefront.
  For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation 
with Senators Hatch, Mikulski and Durbin, and I urge its swift 
enactment into law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record along with the sectional analysis and the newspaper article to 
which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 640

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Prosecutors 
     Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN THE DEFINITION OF 
                   A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (20) of section 8331 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``position.'' and 
     inserting ``position and a Federal prosecutor.''.
       (2) Federal prosecutor defined.--Section 8331 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (28), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(29) `Federal prosecutor' means--
       ``(A) an assistant United States attorney under section 542 
     of title 28; or
       ``(B) an attorney employed by the Department of Justice and 
     designated by the Attorney General of the United States.''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (17) of section 8401 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' after 
     ``agency;''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) a Federal prosecutor;''.
       (2) Federal prosecutor defined.--Section 8401 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (33), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (34), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) `Federal prosecutor' means--
       ``(A) an assistant United States attorney under section 542 
     of title 28; or
       ``(B) an attorney employed by the Department of Justice and 
     designated by the Attorney General of the United States.''.
       (c) Treatment Under Certain Provisions of Law (Unrelated to 
     Retirement) To Remain Unchanged.--
       (1) Original appointments.--Subsections (d) and (e) of 
     section 3307 of title 5, United States Code, are amended by 
     adding at the end of each the following: ``The preceding 
     sentence shall not apply in the case of an original 
     appointment of a Federal prosecutor as defined under section 
     8331(29) or 8401(35).''.
       (2) Mandatory separation.--Sections 8335(b) and 8425(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, are amended by adding at the end 
     of each the following: ``The preceding provisions of this 
     subsection shall not apply in the case of a Federal 
     prosecutor as defined under section 8331(29) or 8401(35).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable 
     pay period beginning on or after 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCUMBENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the term--
       (1) ``Federal prosecutor'' means--
       (A) an assistant United States attorney under section 542 
     of title 28, United States Code; or
       (B) an attorney employed by the Department of Justice and 
     designated by the Attorney General of the United States; and
       (2) ``incumbent'' means an individual who is serving as a 
     Federal prosecutor on the effective date of this section.
       (b) Designated Attorneys.--If the Attorney General of the 
     United States makes any designation of an attorney to meet 
     the definition under subsection (a)(1)(B) for purposes of 
     being an incumbent under this section,--
       (1) such designation shall be made before the effective 
     date of this section; and
       (2) the Attorney General shall submit to the Office of 
     Personnel Management before that effective date--
       (A) the name of the individual designated; and
       (B) the period of service performed by that individual as a 
     Federal prosecutor before that effective date.
       (c) Notice Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Department of Justice 
     shall take measures reasonably designed to provide notice to 
     incumbents on--
       (1) their election rights under this Act; and
       (2) the effects of making or not making a timely election 
     under this Act.
       (d) Election Available to Incumbents.--
       (1) In general.--An incumbent may elect, for all purposes, 
     to be treated--
       (A) in accordance with the amendments made by this Act; or
       (B) as if this Act had never been enacted.
       (2) Failure to elect.--Failure to make a timely election 
     under this subsection shall be treated in the same way as an 
     election under paragraph (1)(A), made on the last day 
     allowable under paragraph (3).
       (3) Time limitation.--An election under this subsection 
     shall not be effective unless the election is made not later 
     than the earlier of--
       (A) 120 days after the date on which the notice under 
     subsection (c) is provided; or
       (B) the date on which the incumbent involved separates from 
     service.
       (e) Limited Retroactive Effect.--
       (1) Effect on retirement.--In the case of an incumbent who 
     elects (or is deemed to have elected) the option under 
     subsection (d)(1)(A), all service performed by that 
     individual as a Federal prosecutor shall--
       (A) to the extent performed on or after the effective date 
     of that election, be treated in accordance with applicable 
     provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, as amended by this Act; and
       (B) to the extent performed before the effective date of 
     that election, be treated in accordance with applicable 
     provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     such title, as if the amendments made by this Act had then 
     been in effect.
       (2) No other retroactive effect.--Nothing in this Act 
     (including the amendments made by this Act) shall affect any 
     of the terms or conditions of an individual's employment 
     (apart from those governed by subchapter III of chapter 83 or 
     chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code) with respect to 
     any period of service preceding the date on which such 
     individual's election under subsection (d) is made (or is 
     deemed to have been made).
       (f) Individual Contributions for Prior Service.--
       (1) In general.--An individual who makes an election under 
     subsection (d)(1)(A) may, with respect to prior service 
     performed by such individual, contribute to the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund the difference between the 
     individual contributions that were actually made for such 
     service and the individual contributions that should have 
     been made for such service if the amendments made by section 
     2 had then been in effect.
       (2) Effect of not contributing.--If no part of or less than 
     the full amount required

[[Page S3887]]

     under paragraph (1) is paid, all prior service of the 
     incumbent shall remain fully creditable as law enforcement 
     officer service, but the resulting annuity shall be reduced 
     in a manner similar to that described in section 8334(d)(2) 
     of title 5, United States Code, to the extent necessary to 
     make up the amount unpaid.
       (3) Prior service defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``prior service'' means, with respect to any 
     individual who makes an election under subsection (d)(1)(A), 
     service performed by such individual before the date as of 
     which appropriate retirement deductions begin to be made in 
     accordance with such election.
       (g) Government Contributions for Prior Service.--
       (1) In general.--If an incumbent makes an election under 
     subsection (d)(1)(A), the Department of Justice shall remit 
     to the Office of Personnel Management, for deposit in the 
     Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the amount required 
     under paragraph (2) with respect to such service.
       (2) Amount required.--The amount the Department of Justice 
     is required to remit is, with respect to any prior service, 
     the total amount of additional Government contributions to 
     the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (over and 
     above those actually paid) that would have been required if 
     the amendments made by section 2 had then been in effect.
       (3) Contributions to be made ratably.--Government 
     contributions under this subsection on behalf of an incumbent 
     shall be made by the Department of Justice ratably (on at 
     least an annual basis) over the 10-year period beginning on 
     the date referred to in subsection (f)(3).
       (h) Regulations.--Except as provided under section 4, the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations 
     necessary to carry out this Act, including provisions under 
     which any interest due on the amount described under 
     subsection (f) shall be determined.
       (i) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 120 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.

       (a) Definition.--In this section the term ``Federal 
     prosecutor'' has the meaning given under section 3(a)(1).
       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United 
     States shall--
       (A) consult with the Office of Personnel Management on this 
     Act (including the amendments made by this Act); and
       (B) promulgate regulations for making designations of 
     Federal prosecutors who are not assistant United States 
     attorneys.
       (2) Contents.--Any regulations promulgated under paragraph 
     (1) shall ensure that attorneys designated as Federal 
     prosecutors who are not assistant United States attorneys 
     have routine employee responsibilities that are substantially 
     similar to those of assistant United States attorneys 
     assigned to the litigation of criminal cases, such as the 
     representation of the United States before grand juries and 
     in trials, appeals, and related court proceedings.
       (c) Designations.--The designation of any Federal 
     prosecutor who is not an assistant United States attorney for 
     purposes of this Act (including the amendments made by this 
     Act) shall be at the discretion of the Attorney General of 
     the United States.
                                  ____


                          [From the USA Today]

              U.S. Attorneys Dispatched To Advise Military

                          (By Steven Komarow)

       KUWAIT CITY.--There could be civilians chained to an Iraqi 
     missile launcher to serve as human shields. Tanks could be 
     parked next to mosques. Chemical weapons plants might also 
     produce medicine.
       In a war with Iraq, U.S. commanders could often have an 
     agonizing choice: strike a target and run the risk of killing 
     civilians, and being accused by the rest of the world of 
     committing a war crime, or hold fire and run the risk that 
     Saddam Hussein will still have deadly weapons he can use 
     against U.S. and British troops or neighboring countries.
       To help weigh those issues, the Pentagon has dispatched 
     dozens of attorneys to command posts in the region. Their 
     job: help keep the United States legal if President Bush 
     unleashes its fury against Saddam's forces.
       Military commanders have long had legal advisers. But more 
     than ever, attorneys are in the teams that choose the 
     strategies, the targets and even the weapons to be used. 
     Lawyers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines will be 
     working around-the-clock to be on hand when targets appear 
     and fast decisions are needed.
       With so much of the world skeptical of U.S. intentions, 
     pressure will be high. ``The world expects the United States 
     to do the right thing,'' says Capt. Noah Malgeri, an Army 
     lawyer.


                           Collateral damage

       Col. Rocco Lamuro, who runs a course on ``targeting law'' 
     at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, say that when air power came 
     of age in World War II, the missions would almost always be 
     planned weeks in advance. There weren't any spy satellites 
     sending ``real-time'' pictures of enemy movements--and thus 
     pushing commanders to make quick decisions on whether to 
     strike. In World War II, there was plenty of time to discuss 
     legalities and debate the potential ``collateral damage,'' 
     the unintentional killing of civilians.
       It was also true back then that collateral damage was 
     accepted as an unfortunate but natural part of war. Sixty 
     years ago, ``you might send 100 B-17 (bombers) to try to 
     destroy something that's within an acre,'' Lamuro says. There 
     were no ``smart bombs'' that could zero in on small targets. 
     It was assumed that many bombs would hit ground far from the 
     target. Today, Lamuro says, ``you'd send only one'' bomber or 
     missile, and the weapon would be expected to hit its target.
       When missiles do go awry, as happened when the United 
     States accidentally struck the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 
     May 1999 or when a bomb dropped on Baghdad hit a shelter and 
     killed 408 civilians in 1991, there is alarm worldwide.
       What do U.S. military lawyers--who work in offices of each 
     service's Judge Advocate General (made famous by the CBS-TV 
     show JAG)--use to guide them? The Law of Armed Conflict is a 
     set of rules derived primarily from post-World War II Geneva 
     Conventions. Commanders also must follow U.S. law and the top 
     command's rules of engagement.
       The rules are not pie-in-the-sky pronouncements. They 
     reflect how battles are fought. They try to protect innocents 
     but recognize the reality of battle. ``If you're a priest 
     who's running around blessing people on the battlefield, 
     you're OK,'' Lamuro says. ``If you pick up a gun, you'll get 
     shot. You can't use a technicality to shield yourself.''
       In most cases, there's little dispute about the legality of 
     clear military targets. A tank on a battlefield is always 
     fair game. A school is not--unless it can be proved that it's 
     used as a military site.
       Other cases are less clear, and legal issues aren't the 
     only factors. There is, for instance, the issue of human 
     shields. The 1949 Geneva Convention specifically states that 
     the presence of civilians cannot be used to render a target 
     immune from attack. Just because an enemy has surrounded a 
     weapons depot with civilian volunteers does not make it an 
     illegal target. Even so, Lamuro says, commanders must also 
     worry about ``the CNN test.'' Is the target worth all the 
     loss of innocent life--and the inevitable outcry? Targets 
     such as dams and power plants also are hot-button issues 
     because their destruction would harm civilians. The 
     lawyers would advise they be destroyed only when 
     necessary, Lamuro says. It's practical advice, he says, 
     because the military must be ``as concerned with winning 
     the peace as winning the wars.''


                              individuals

       Targeting individuals is an especially difficult issue. A 
     year ago, there were numerous reports that a Predator drone 
     aircraft loaded with Hellfire missiles had the ousted Taliban 
     leader Mohammed Omar in its sights in Afghanistan. But no 
     missile was fired, reportedly on the advice of a lawyer.
       It isn't known for sure whether the strike was scrubbed 
     because civilians were nearby or for some other reason. But 
     the incident provoked discussion about whether attorneys have 
     too much influence. Lamuro says it would be wrong ``to 
     overstate the lawyers's role.'' They are advisers, he says. 
     Commanders make the ultimate choice.
       One of the hottest legal topics that would be decided only 
     at the highest levels is whether to target Saddam himself. 
     Legally, it could depend on timing: Lawyers say that before a 
     war, he would not be considered a valid military target. U.S. 
     policy also prohibits assassinations of leaders.
       If there was a war and Saddam was commanding the Iraqi 
     army, he would be considered a combatant and could be 
     targeted.
       If he no longer had that role and allied forces caught him 
     fleeing, the target status might be revoked. Instead, he 
     might be given exile or arrested and charged with war crimes.
       Another tenet of the Law of Armed Conflict is that the 
     force used should be proportional to the task. For targeters, 
     that fits neatly into their objective of conserving 
     firepower.
       ``I look for the minimum number of targets that must be 
     struck to adequately achieve the commander's objective,'' 
     says one U.S. intelligence officer, who asked that his name 
     not be reported to protect his identity. In the end, neither 
     the lawyers nor the other officers in the targeting teams 
     have the final word on what will be struck.
       Air plans are reviewed and approved up the chain of 
     command--again with attorneys on hand--to make sure the 
     individual pieces add up to a war plan that is legally 
     defensible.
                                  ____


     ``Federal Prosecutors Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2003''


                      section-by section analysis

       Sec. 1. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Federal Prosecutors Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 
     2003.''
       Sec. 2. Inclusion of Federal prosecutors in the definition 
     of a law enforcement officer. Amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331 
     and 8401 to extend the enhanced law enforcement officer, 
     ``LEO'' retirement benefits to Federal prosecutors, defined 
     to include assistant United States attorneys, ``AUSAs, and 
     such other attorneys in the Department of Justice as are 
     designated by the Attorney General of the

[[Page S3888]]

     United States. This section also exempts Federal prosecutors 
     from mandatory retirement provisions for LEO's under the 
     civil service laws.
       Sec. 3. Provisions relating to incumbents. Governs the 
     treatment of incumbent Federal prosecutors who would be 
     eligible for LEO retirement benefits under this Act. This 
     section requires the Office of Personnel Management to 
     provide notice to incumbents of their rights under this 
     subtitle; allows incumbents to opt out of the LEO retirement 
     program; governs the crediting of prior service by 
     incumbents; and provides for make-up contributions for prior 
     service of incumbents to the Civil Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund. The section gives incumbents the option of 
     either contributing their own share of any make-up 
     contributions or receiving a proportionally lesser retirement 
     benefit. The section allows the government to contribute its 
     share of any make-up contribution ratably over a ten year 
     period.
       Sec. 4. Department of Justice administrative actions. 
     Allows the Attorney General to designate additional 
     Department of Justice attorneys with substantially similar 
     responsibilities, in addition to assistant United States 
     attorneys, as Federal prosecutors for purposes of this Act 
     and thus be eligible for the LEO retirement benefits.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 643. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in 
cooperation with the University of New Mexico, to construct and occupy 
a portion of the Hibben Center for Archaeological Research at the 
University of New Mexico; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce a bill that 
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to help construct and occupy 
part of the Hibben Center for Archaeological Research at the University 
of New Mexico. This bill will help the University of New Mexico finish 
a state of the art museum facility to store, and display the National 
Park Service's Chaco Collection.
  Let me give you a bit of background. In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt 
founded the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park in 
Northwestern New Mexico. The Monument was created to preserve the 
extensive prehistoric pueblo ruins in Chaco Canyon.
  The height of the Chaco culture began in the mid 800's and lasted 
over 300 years. Dozens of complex multi-storied masonry buildings 
containing hundreds of rooms were built over that time. These complexes 
were connected to communities by a network of prehistoric roads. I 
helped to establish the Chaco Culture National Historic Park to 
preserve these areas.
  Since 1907, the University of New Mexico and the National Park 
Service have been partners in this area. From 1907 to 1949, the 
University owned the land within the Park boundaries. During this 
period, Dr. Frank Hibben excavated in Chaco Canyon and remained 
interested in the area throughout his long career. The University built 
a large collection of artifacts that it retains today.
  In 1949, the University deeded the land to the Federal Government, 
and since that time, the University and the Park Service have continued 
a partnership through a series of memoranda of understanding. Since 
1985, the NPS Chaco collections have been housed at University of New 
Mexico's Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. As both the University of New 
Mexico and the National Park Service collections have begun to grow, a 
new home for them is needed.
  To this end, Dr. Hibben began planning a new research and curation 
facility at the University of New Mexico. He asked the Park Service to 
partner with him on this project, and today, construction of the Hibben 
Center, a modern, professional facility to house the University of New 
Mexico's collections as well as the Park Service collections, is a 
reality.
  Dr. Hibben recently passed away, and left the University of New 
Mexico the funds to assist with this project. The partnership between 
the Park Service and the University will mean that the Hibben Center 
will hold a world-class collection of historical artifacts and will 
facilitate and encourage the study of these important Southwestern 
collections.
  This bill will provide authorization to pay for the Federal share of 
the improvement costs to the Hibben Center. This bill is long overdue, 
and will honor both the legacy of Dr. Hibben and the Chaco Culture.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 643

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hibben Center for 
     Archaeological Research Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) when the Chaco Culture National Historical Park was 
     established in 1907 as the Chaco Canyon National Monument, 
     the University of New Mexico owned a significant portion of 
     the land located within the boundaries of the Park;
       (2) during the period from the 1920's to 1947, the 
     University of New Mexico conducted archaeological research in 
     the Chaco Culture National Historical Park;
       (3) in 1949, the University of New Mexico--
       (A) conveyed to the United States all right, title, and 
     interest of the University in and to the land in the Park; 
     and
       (B) entered into a memorandum of agreement with the 
     National Park Service establishing a research partnership 
     with the Park;
       (4) since 1971, the Chaco Culture National Historical Park, 
     through memoranda of understanding and cooperative agreements 
     with the University of New Mexico, has maintained a research 
     museum collection and archive at the University;
       (5) both the Park and the University have large, 
     significant archaeological research collections stored at the 
     University in multiple, inadequate, inaccessible, and cramped 
     repositories; and
       (6) insufficient storage at the University makes research 
     on and management, preservation, and conservation of the 
     archaeological research collections difficult.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Hibben center.--The term ``Hibben Center'' means the 
     Hibben Center for Archaeological Research to be constructed 
     at the University under section 4(a).
       (2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Chaco Culture 
     National Historical Park in the State of New Mexico.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) Tenant improvement.--The term ``tenant improvement'' 
     includes--
       (A) finishing the interior portion of the Hibben Center 
     leased by the National Park Service under section 4(c)(1); 
     and
       (B) installing in that portion of the Hibben Center--
       (i) permanent fixtures; and
       (ii) portable storage units and other removable objects.
       (5) University.--The term ``University'' means the 
     University of New Mexico.

     SEC. 4. HIBBEN CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary may, in cooperation with 
     the University, construct and occupy a portion of the Hibben 
     Center for Archaeological Research at the University.
       (b) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may provide to the 
     University a grant to pay the Federal share of the 
     construction and related costs for the Hibben Center under 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the construction 
     and related costs for the Hibben Center shall be 37 percent.
       (3) Limitation.--Amounts provided under paragraph (1) shall 
     not be used to pay any costs to design, construct, and 
     furnish the tenant improvements under subsection (c)(2).
       (c) Lease.--
       (1) In general.--Before funds made available under section 
     5 may be expended for construction costs under subsection 
     (b)(1) or for the costs for tenant improvements under 
     paragraph (2), the University shall offer to enter into a 
     long-term lease with the United States that--
       (A) provides to the National Park Service space in the 
     Hibben Center for storage, research, and offices; and
       (B) is acceptable to the Secretary.
       (2) Tenant improvements.--The Secretary may design, 
     construct, and furnish tenant improvements for, and pay any 
     moving costs relating to, the portion of the Hibben Center 
     leased to the National Park Service under paragraph (1).
       (d) Cooperative Agreements.--To encourage collaborative 
     management of the Chacoan archaeological objects associated 
     with northwestern New Mexico, the Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the University, other units of 
     the National Park System, other Federal agencies, and Indian 
     tribes for--
       (1) the curation of and conduct of research on artifacts in 
     the museum collection described in section 2(4); and
       (2) the development, use, management, and operation of the 
     portion of the Hibben Center leased to the National Park 
     Service under subsection (c)(1).

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) to pay the Federal share of the construction costs 
     under section 4(b), $1,574,000; and
       (2) to pay the costs of carrying out section 4(c)(2), 
     $2,198,000.

[[Page S3889]]

       (b) Availability.--Amounts made available under subsection 
     (a) shall remain available until expended.
       (c) Reversion.--If the lease described in section 4(c)(1) 
     is not executed by the date that is 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, any amounts made available under 
     subsection (a) shall revert to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 644. A bill to enhance national efforts to investigate, prosecute, 
and prevent crimes against children by increasing investigatory tools, 
criminal penalties, and resources and by extending existing laws; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have all been devastated by the repeated 
news flashes of violent crimes being committed against children across 
the Nation. In June 2002, Elizabeth Smart, a 14 year old from my home 
State of Utah was kidnapped at gun point from her home in Salt Lake 
City. Just this past week, the entire Nation rejoiced with the Smart 
family after Elizabeth was found alive and reunited with her loved 
ones.
  Five year old Samantha Runnion was not so lucky. Just one month after 
Elizabeth Smart's abduction, Samantha was kidnapped while playing with 
a neighborhood friend down the street from her home in Stanton, CA. The 
following day, her body was found along a highway, nearly 50 miles from 
her home. California authorities have charged Alejandro Avila with 
Runnion's abduction, sexual assault and murder. Reportedly, Avila was 
acquitted two years ago of molesting two young girls under the age of 
14.
  Elizabeth Smart and Samantha Runnion are just two, among many, recent 
child victims. The list of tragic cases involving minor victims goes on 
and on.
  These horrific incidents illustrate the need for comprehensive 
legislation--at both the State and national level--to protect our 
children. We need to ensure that federal and state law enforcement 
officers have all the tools and resources they need to find, prosecute, 
and punish those who commit crimes against our youth.
  Today, I rise to reintroduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act 
of 2003'' which enhances existing laws, investigative tools, criminal 
penalties and child crime resources in a variety of ways. I introduced 
this important bill with Senator Feinstein last year, but it failed to 
go anywhere. My unwavering commitment to this issue compels me to 
introduce it again this year. Let me elaborate on the Act's specific 
provisions.
  By broadening existing laws, the Act enhances the ability of child 
victims to pursue and prevail in criminal proceedings against their 
predators.
  First, the Act extends the statute of limitations period that applies 
to offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of children under 18 
years of age. Current law permits such cases to be brought until the 
victim reaches the age of 25 years. This amendment will allow 
meritorious cases of child sexual and physical abuse to be brought up 
until the date the minor reaches the age of 35 years.

  It is well-documented that child abuse victims often do not come 
forward until years after the abuse occurred. Victims fail to come 
forward because they fear their disclosures will lead to further 
humiliation, shame, and even ostracism. Abusers should not benefit from 
the lasting psychological harms they have inflicted on innocent 
children.
  I believe that there should rarely, if ever, be a time when we say to 
a victim who has suffered as a child at the hands of an abuser: you 
have identified your abuser; you have proven the crime; yet the abuser 
will remain free because you, the victim, waited to long to come 
forward. Our criminal justice system should be ready to adjudicate all 
meritorious claims of child abuse. This amendment is meant to recognize 
that the arm of the law should be long in the prosecution of crimes of 
this heinous nature.
  Second, the Act amends an existing Federal evidentiary rule, Federal 
Rule of Evidence 414, to permit the admission into evidence of prior 
offenses involving child molestation, or the possession of sexually 
explicit materials containing actual or apparent minors. The current 
evidentiary rule permits such evidence to be admitted only where the 
victim was under 14 years of age. This amendment extends the rule to 
apply to any minor--any victim who was under 18 years of age at the 
time the offense was committed.
  In addition, the amendment makes clear that even where an individual 
possesses what may be virtual, as opposed to actual, child pornography, 
and therefore, may have a valid defense against prosecution in light of 
the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech 
Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002), such evidence is nonetheless 
admissible under Rule 414. Like the possession of actual child 
pornography, the possession of virtual child pornography is highly 
probative evidence that should be admissible in a case involving child 
molestation or exploitation.
  Third, the Act also limits the scope of the common law marital 
privileges by making them inapplicable in a criminal child abuse case 
in which the abuser or his or her spouse invokes a privilege to avoid 
testifying. Where a child abuser is charged with a crime against the 
child of either spouse, or a child under the custody or control of 
either spouse, neither the abuser nor his or her spouse should be 
permitted a marital privilege to avoid providing critical evidence.
  The marital privileges exist because we in society believe that 
forcing a person to testify against his or her spouse, or permitting a 
spouse to testify about confidential marital communications, may 
jeopardize a marriage. While we value trusting, harmonious marriages, 
our societal interest in the proper administration of justice far 
exceeds our interest in preserving marital harmony where a spouse has 
chosen a vulnerable, defenseless child in the home as his or her 
victim. In my view, it is more important to prosecute and punish child 
abusers than it is to minimize the potential risk to the life of a 
marriage in which child abuse is occurring.
  The Act increases the investigative tools available to law 
enforcement agencies in several significant ways.
  First, the Act amends the DNA Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act by 
increasing the categories of offenses that are included in the database 
of convicted offender DNA profiles, the Combined DNA Index System, 
CODIS. Without question, DNA--which is unique to each individual and 
maintains its evidentiary integrity for long periods of time--is a 
valuable investigatory tool. Time and again DNA evidence has aided in 
solving difficult criminal cases by linking suspects to crimes and by 
eliminating others.
  This Act expands the class of offenses that are included in CODIS by 
adding all federal felony offenses to the database. Currently, the DNA 
Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act includes only select Federal 
offenses. The successful experiences of approximately 19 States, 
including Utah, which currently authorize the collection of DNA samples 
for all felony offenses illustrate the need for this extension. These 
States have solved numerous crimes where DNA has been found--frequently 
based on an offender's conviction for a nonviolent offense--such as 
burglary, theft or a narcotics offense.
  Remarkably, not all States currently authorize the collection of DNA 
samples from all types of child offenders. Thus, the Act also expands 
the definition of qualifying offense to include all state offenses 
against children, such as those involving child kidnapping or abuse. 
This expansion will increase law enforcement's ability to solve such 
crimes where DNA evidence is found.
  Second, the Act extends the Federal wiretap statute by adding sex 
trafficking, sexual abuse, exploitation, and other sex-related offenses 
as predicate offenses to the statute. As we all know, the Internet is 
becoming an increasingly popular means by which sexual predators make 
contact with child victims. Although predators typically initiate a 
relationship online, they ultimately seek to make personal contact with 
the child--both over the telephone and through face to face meetings. 
But as the law exists today, investigators are restricted in their 
ability to investigate such predators. This provision will enable 
investigators, who meet the statutory requirements of the Federal 
wiretap statute, to obtain court authorization to monitor such 
communications. This amendment will not only aid investigators in 
obtaining evidence of these crimes, it will also help

[[Page S3890]]

stop these crimes before a sexual predator makes contact with a child.

  To obtain a wiretap, law enforcement authorities will still need to 
meet the strict statutory guidelines of the wiretap statute and obtain 
authorization from a court. Thus, the legislation will not undermine 
the legitimate expectations of privacy of law-abiding Americans. This 
expanded tool will be particularly useful to investigators who track 
sexual predators and child pornographers.
  The Act also strengthens criminal penalties by extending the 
supervised release period that applies to certain offenders, increasing 
the maximum penalties that apply to offenses involving transportation 
for illegal sexual activity, and directing the United States Sentencing 
Commission to review the guidelines that apply to criminal offenses 
with which child predators are frequently charged to determine whether 
they are sufficiently severe.
  The Act grants Federal judges the discretion to impose up to lifetime 
periods of supervised release for individuals who are convicted of 
sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, transportation for illegal sexual 
activity, or sex trafficking offenses. Under current Federal law, a 
judge can impose no more than 5 years of supervised release for a 
serious felony, and no more than 3 years for a lesser categorized 
offense. This amendment to the general supervised release statute will 
not require judges to impose a period of supervised release longer than 
5 years; it will simply authorize them to do so where a judge sees fit 
based on the nature and circumstances of the case.
  In my view, if there is any class of offenders on which our criminal 
justice system should keep a close eye, it is sexual predators. It is 
well documented that sex offenders are more likely than other violent 
criminals to commit future crimes. And if there is any class of victims 
we should seek to protect from repeat offenders, it is those who have 
been sexually assaulted. They suffer tremendous physical, emotional and 
psychological injuries. By ensuring that egregious sexual offenders are 
supervised for longer periods of time, we will increase the chance that 
they will be deterred from and punished for future criminal acts.
  The Act increases the maximum penalties that apply to certain 
offenses, including sexual offenses that involve the trafficking of 
children and transportation. Stiffer penalties are needed to punish and 
deter individuals who commit such offenses.

  The Act also directs the United States Sentencing Commission to 
review the sentencing guidelines that apply to various offenses that 
apply to kidnappers, sexual abusers and exploiters, to ensure that 
Federal sentences are sufficiently severe where aggravating 
circumstances exist, such as where the victim was abducted, injured, 
killed, or abused by more than one person.
  In a number of significant ways, the Act enhances the resources that 
are available to investigate and prosecute crimes against children.
  First, the Act directs the Attorney General to appoint a Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General to oversee a new section at the Department 
of Justice designated to focus solely on crimes against children. Among 
other things, the new section will be tasked with prosecuting crimes 
against children, providing guidance and assistance to Federal, State, 
and local law enforcement agencies and personnel who handle such cases, 
coordinating efforts with international law enforcement agencies to 
combat crimes against children, and acting as a liaison with the 
legislative and judicial branches of government to ensure that adequate 
attention and resources are focused on protecting our children from 
predators of all types.
  In addition, the Act tasks the new Crimes Against Children section to 
create an Internet site that consolidates sex offender information 
which States currently disclose under the Federal reporting act. The 
Act also direct States that have not developed Internet sites to do so. 
The creation of a national Internet site will enable concerned citizens 
to find in one, easily accessible place, critical information about 
sexual predators.
  Currently, all 50 States have registration statutes that require sex 
offenders to register and to share information with the United States 
Attorney General through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and over 
30 States make offender information available to the public on the 
Internet. A national Internet site will enhance the public's ability to 
find and access information that is already available in the public 
record, and will protect citizens in States where sex offenders move to 
try to avoid detection of their past criminal acts. In short, the 
national Internet site will provide parents and other concerned 
citizens with essential information about the whereabouts and 
backgrounds of child abusers, so they can take all necessary steps to 
protect our Nation's children from harm's way.
  The Act also increases resources and funding for the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation. The recent series of tragic events involving child 
victims has convinced me that we need to take a more proactive approach 
to prevent, deter and prosecute child predators of all types--abusers, 
molesters, pornographers and traffickers. And at the same time, we need 
to provide our children, the vulnerable victims of such predators, with 
the support systems they need to recover fully from such horrendous 
crimes and to assist law enforcement in effectively investigating and 
prosecuting these crimes.
  To this end, the Act directs the FBI to establish a National Crimes 
Against Children Response Center whose primary mission will be to 
develop a comprehensive and rapid response plan to reported crimes 
involving the victimization of children. While the National Response 
Center is to be established by the FBI, in consultation with the Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General for the Crimes Against Children Office, it 
will integrate the resources and expertise of other Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement agencies, as well as other child serving 
professionals. By creating and training rapid response teams comprised 
of federal, state and local prosecutors, investigators, victim witness 
specialists, mental health and other child serving professionals, the 
Center will greatly enhance our national response and prevention 
efforts. The combination of valuable expertise and resources provided 
by such multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary partnerships will 
increase the likelihood that law enforcement authorities will 
successfully identify, prosecute and punish child predators, and that 
child serving professionals will provide child victims with much needed 
support.
  The ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' will enhance our 
ability to combat crimes against children, but it is by no means an 
end. Congress needs to continue to explore additional ways in which we 
can improve our ability on a national level to protect our children. 
Our children fall victim to many of the same crimes we face as adults, 
and they are also subject to crimes that are specific to childhood, 
like child abuse and neglect. The effects of such heinous crimes are 
devastating and often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence 
and abuse.
  I want to do all I can to ensure that we devote the same intensity of 
purpose to crimes committed against children, as we do to other serious 
criminal offenses, such as those involving terrorism. We have no 
greater resource than our children. I invite the Department of Justice, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other non governmental entities 
and professionals who are charged with protecting our children to work 
with me to improve our Federal laws and to assist States in doing the 
same.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, 
Senator Hatch, to reintroduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act 
of 2003''--a bill to help protect our Nation's children from child 
molestation and other forms of abuse. Senator Hatch and I introduced 
this bill for the first time on September 10, 2002.
  Sexual abuse of children is a pervasive and extremely troubling 
problem in the United States. I learned that over 25 years ago when I 
was serving as the County Prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio. I saw what 
this kind of abuse does to innocent, helpless children and how 
pervasive the crimes are in our communities. In fact, according to the 
Congressional Research Service, one of every three girls and one of 
every seven boys will be sexually abused before they reach the age of 
18.

[[Page S3891]]

  Our local police and prosecutors are on the front line in the fight 
against these criminals, and they deserve credit and our thanks for 
their hard work. For example, in Greene County recently, a number of 
child pornographers were identified and prosecuted when local law 
enforcement carried out a successful Internet sting operation.
  Despite successes like this, however, the data suggest that law 
enforcement is fighting an uphill battle. In 2001 alone, there were 
over 5,400 registered sex offenders living in my home State of Ohio--an 
increase of 319 percent over 1998. Equally troubling, many child 
molesters prey upon dozens of victims before they are reported to law 
enforcement. Some evade detection for so long because many children 
never report the abuse. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
between 60 percent and 80 percent of child molestations and 69 percent 
of sexual assaults are never reported to the police. And, according to 
the Congressional Research Service, of reported sexual assaults, 71 
percent of the victims are children.
  For these reasons, it is vitally important that Congress do 
everything in its power to support law enforcement in its efforts to 
protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Enacting the 
``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' would be a step in the 
right direction. By enacting this measure, we would help protect our 
children from sexual predators, pornographers, and others who abuse 
children. Among its major provisions, this legislation would: 1. Direct 
the FBI to establish a new center that creates and trains ``rapid 
response teams'' (composed of prosecutors, investigators, and others) 
to respond promptly to reported crimes against children; 2. Establish a 
national Internet site that would make sex offender information 
available to the public in one, easily accessible place. Currently, 
about 30 states make offender information available to the public 
online; 3. Authorize the collection of DNA samples from registered sex 
offenders and the inclusion of these DNA samples in the Combined DNA 
Index System, or ``CODIS;'' 4. Permit the prosecution of child abuse 
offenses until a victim reaches the age of 35 (as opposed to the age of 
25 under current law). This provision recognizes that victims of such 
crimes often do not come forward until years after the abuse, out of 
shame or a fear of further humiliation; 5. Make it easier for 
investigators to track sexual predators and child pornographers and 
make it easier to prosecute criminal child abuse/molestation cases; 6. 
Create a new section at the Department of Justice to focus solely on 
crimes against children; and 7. Stiffen penalties for sex-related 
offenses involving children.
  This is a good bill--a bill that would help ensure that our children 
are protected from some of the most heinous of criminals. It is a bill 
that would increase the punishment for those criminals. And, it is a 
bill that, quite simply, is the right thing to do. I encourage my 
colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important measure.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I again rise in support of the 
Comprehensive Child Protection Act. I am proud to be standing with 
Senator Hatch as a co-sponsor of a bill that represents one of the most 
comprehensive pieces of legislation ever drafted to protect children. 
The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us 
of how important this bill is.
  As a former chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee and Ranking 
Republican on the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs during the 107th 
Congress, I have been greatly concerned with the increase in reports of 
child abductions and murders, so I am glad to be a part of this effort 
to address this growing problem. In my tenure on the Judiciary 
Committee, I have long fought for our Nation's children, and have 
ardently supported laws that bring them and their families greater 
protection.
  This legislation comes at a critical time because we are hearing more 
and more about children being taken from their homes or schools and 
abused, or worse, murdered. Our children are a gift to us, are our 
national treasure, and are our future. We must do all that we can to 
protect these innocents and give law enforcement every tool possible to 
ferret out the criminals who would do our children harm. With this 
legislation, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for 
our children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and 
sound, reminds us of how important this bill is.
  The bill does many important things. First, it helps law enforcement 
respond immediately to incidents of child abduction, because, as we've 
seen with the Amber Alert system, time is critical in any abduction 
case to thwart further injury or harm. The bill creates a National 
Crimes Against Children Response Center at the FBI that will integrate 
the resources and expertise of all Federal, State and local law 
enforcement sources to provide a rapid response for crimes involving 
child victims. The bill also helps law enforcement by making it 
possible to get wire taps for suspected sex trafficking and 
exploitation offenses, and will require that all Federal child sex 
crimes offenders have their DNA added to the national DNA registry. So 
the bill will help to centralize information about criminals and 
crimes, and makes the job of the criminal investigator easier and more 
accurate through wiretaps and DNA evidence.
  The bill also creates a website registry for convicted child sexual 
offenders so that parents, neighbors, and police know who in their 
communities is a convicted child predator. This website will supplement 
registries in all 50 States. This important tool will help families 
make better and fully informed decisions about their children's safety, 
and will greatly aid law enforcement's response to reports of child 
abductions and other offenses against children. The bill also gives new 
tools to prosecutors and the courts. It extends the statute of 
limitations for prosecuting child offenders, allows prosecutors to 
introduce evidence of past child sex crimes in sentencing hearings, 
removes the so-called ``spousal privilege'' so that a spouse can't 
stand silent in the prosecution of the other spouse for child sexual 
abuse, and increases the maximum sentences and probation periods for 
child sex offenders. These important tools will make our communities 
safer by helping to rid them of child predators, and by keeping a tight 
leash on predators when they get released from prison.
  So this bill helps the public know about sexual predators in their 
communities, improves the nation's ability to respond to child 
abduction reports, and aids criminal investigators and prosecutors in 
their efforts to protect the public by identifying and locking-up child 
predators. I ask my fellow Senators to support this important bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Collins, Mr. Reed, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 645. A bill to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act 
of 1965 to provide assistance to communities for the redevelopment of 
brownfield sites; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today along with Senators 
Collins, Jeffords and others the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance 
Act of 2003. As a resident of Michigan I am familiar with the obstacles 
facing local communities in their attempts to return brownfields sites 
to productive economic uses. As co-chair of the Senate Smart Growth 
Task Force I understand the national economic importance of these 
efforts.
  Brownfields are abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and 
commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is hindered by 
real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of 
these sites taint our nation's landscape, inhibiting economic 
development and posing a threat to human health and the environment. 
Undeveloped, or underdeveloped, brownfields sites blight communities 
forcing development onto greenfields where they exacerbate the problems 
associated with urban sprawl. If brownfields were instead redeveloped 
they could offer new opportunities for business, housing and open 
space.
  Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally-sound way to bring investment 
back to neglected neighborhoods, clean-up the environment, maximize use 
of existing infrastructure, create jobs and relieve development 
pressure on our urban fringe and farmlands. My

[[Page S3892]]

home state of Michigan is a national leader in brownfields 
redevelopment. For example, the City of Traverse City managed to 
leverage $662,000 of government brownfields funding to turn a former 
gas station and junk yard site into a $20 million private investment in 
a retail, office and parking facility called Radio Center. The City of 
Ludington used brownfields funding to spur the development of a multi-
use retail/office/condominium complex adjacent to a marina. These are 
only two examples of the many successful efforts by local communities 
to leverage Federal, State and local money to harness the resources and 
expertise of the private sector in economic development efforts. The 
Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 would open up the 
possibilities of redevelopment to numerous other communities 
nationwide.
  The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act expands the Department 
of Commerce's Economic Development Administration, EDA, initiatives to 
assist communities with brownfields redevelopment. The bill authorizes 
$60 million annually for five years for brownfields redevelopment. 
Grant money will be used for purposes including collaborative economic 
development planning, eco-industrial development and revolving loan 
funds. By encouraging development in existing communities the 
brownfields program will strengthen local economies, preserve precious 
resources and make best use of existing infrastructure. This bill for 
the first time would provide specific authority and funding to the EDA 
for these initiatives. The new projects authorized by the bill would 
complement the existing and successful brownfields efforts of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce and the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that redevelopment of all of 
the brownfields nationwide could generate more than 550,000 additional 
jobs that would benefit our many economically struggling communities. 
Cities and States could see as much as $2.4 billion in new tax 
revenues. The Economic Development Administration has helped distressed 
communities attract investment, create jobs and strengthen their 
economies for the last forty years. This bill will build on EDA's 
success in helping localities improve their infrastructure and help 
them redevelop their brownfields sites. Communities nationwide have 
expressed interest in brownfields redevelopment but lack the financial 
resources necessary to accomplish their goals. This bill is an 
excellent example of how the Federal Government can be supportive of 
local economic development projects. The Brownfield Redevelopment 
Assistance Act of 2003 advances the goals of the smart growth movement 
by helping create healthier communities and strengthens the economy 
through federally supportive, locally driven initiatives.
  Many organizations support these bills, including the American 
Institute of Architects, American Planning Association, American 
Society of Civil Engineers, Enterprise Institute, National Business 
Incubation Association, National Association of Counties, National 
Association of Regional Councils, National League of Cities, US 
Conference of Mayors, National Congress for Community Economic 
Development, Smart Growth America and others. I ask unanimous consent 
to have letters endorsing this bill printed, the Record. I also ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill and additional material was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                                    The Enterprise Foundation,

                                     Columbia, MD, March 17, 2003.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: The Enterprise Foundation commends you 
     for joining Senator Jeffords in introducing the ``Brownfields 
     Redevelopment Assistance Act.'' Enterprise strongly supports 
     this bill.
       Enterprise is a national nonprofit organization that raises 
     resources and channels them to grassroots groups at the local 
     level for affordable housing, economic development and other 
     community revitalization initiatives in distressed urban and 
     rural neighborhoods nationwide. Central to our mission is 
     generating investment in areas suffering from blight, neglect 
     and disinvestment. Brownfields are prime examples of such 
     areas.
       Enterprise is engaged in several large-scale brownfield 
     redevelopment efforts around the country. Targeted incentives 
     such as your bill provides would enable Enterprise and others 
     in the private sector to convert more brownfields to 
     productive uses.
       By spurring brownfields redevelopment, your bill would 
     direct limited public resources to places that already 
     benefit from existing infrastructure and promote economic 
     investment where it is needed most. The bill epitomizes smart 
     growth and comprehensive community development principles.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,

                                         F. Barton Harvey III,

                                             Chairman of the Board
     and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                                         Smart Growth America,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2003.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Jim Jeffords,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Levin, Jeffords and Collins: Smart Growth 
     America would like to thank you for your leadership on the 
     introduction the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 
     2003. As advocates of smart growth--growth that revitalizes 
     neighborhoods, supports affordable housing, promotes 
     transportation choice, and preserves open space and 
     farmland--we regard brownfields redevelopment as a top 
     priority.
       With an estimated 450,000 nationwide, brownfields pose a 
     major barrier to reinvestment in many communities. These 
     parcels are not simply gaps, they are an active blight, 
     pulling down surrounding property values and driving 
     development and investment further away from existing 
     infrastructure.
       The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act would supply 
     an additional tool for local communities to return these 
     sites to productive use by providing the Economic Development 
     Administration (EDA) with the authority and dedicated funding 
     to support brownfield redevelopment projects. Specifically, 
     the legislation would authorize the EDA to administer a $60 
     million per year grant program for targeted assistance to 
     projects that redevelop brownfield sites and promote eco-
     industrial development.
       We believe the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance will 
     assist communities nationwide in encouraging economic 
     development, removing environmental and public health 
     hazards, promoting neighborhood revitalization, and 
     preserving open space. We support your efforts and look 
     forward to working with you to pass this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Don Chen,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                             National Congress for


                               Community Economic Development,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2003.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: The National Congress for Community 
     Economic Development thanks you for re-introducing The 
     Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003.
       We support the efforts of HUD, EPA, and the other agencies 
     that are part of the Brownfields National Partnership. Moving 
     these lands into productive reuse, reducing sprawl, and 
     increasing the tax base will help local economies and improve 
     the quality of life.
       As the trade association of America's 3,600 community 
     development corporations, we believe that this bill would 
     help in our efforts to revitalize distressed urban and rural 
     communities.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Carol Wayman,
     Director of Policy.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2003.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Russell Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: On behalf of the nation's elected 
     county officials, I am writing in support of the Brownfields 
     Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003. This legislation is 
     important to the redevelopment efforts of brownfields sites 
     in communities.
       The National Association of Counties (NACo) has been 
     longtime supporter of brownfield site revitalization. After 
     restoring abandoned properties to active use, redeveloped 
     properties contribute to a community's overall economic 
     vitality through business attraction, job creation, and the 
     enhancement of the local tax base. Also, NACo is a strong 
     advocate for the work of the Economic Development 
     Administration, and supports additional federal economic 
     development efforts by the agency.
       In particular, NACo appreciates the bill's focus on 
     distressed communities experiencing high levels of 
     unemployment or underemployment, as well as population loss 
     and infrastructure deterioration. Additional federal 
     resources are needed to leverage with local economic 
     development efforts to help alleviate economic distress in 
     many communities across the country.

[[Page S3893]]

       NACo applauds your efforts towards the restoration and 
     redevelopment of brownfields sites, and offers its full 
     support of this important legislation. Please feel free to 
     contact Cassandra Matthews or Julie Ufner, NACo Associate 
     Legislative Directors, at (202) 393-6226, if you need further 
     information or assistance.
       Thank you for your leadership on this matter
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Naake,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                  American Society


                                           of Civil Engineers,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2003.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: I am writing on behalf of the 130,000 
     members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to 
     let you know of our support for your proposed legislation to 
     expand the brownfields program enacted in 2002 by providing 
     federal assistance for distressed communities under the 
     Public Works and Economic Development Act.
       As you already realize, the restoration of brownfields is 
     important to the environmental and industrial health of this 
     nation through the revitalization of many of our blighted 
     areas. In 1995, the General Accounting Office estimated that 
     there were more than 450,000 brownfield properties across 
     America. In 2000, the U.S. Conference of Mayors calculated 
     that redeveloped brownfields could generate 550,000 
     additional jobs and up to $2.4 billion in new tax revenue for 
     cities nationwide.
       ASCE believes that brownfields restoration, properly 
     carried out, limits urban sprawl thereby achieving a balance 
     between economic development, the rights of individual 
     property owners, the public interest, social wants and a 
     healthy environment. Revitalized brownfields reduce the 
     demand for underdeveloped land. As devastated urban land is 
     returned to productive use, the pressure to develop distant 
     open spaces is lessened, thereby mitigating the undesirable 
     effects of sprawl, and such as traffic congestion, and 
     preserving culturally and ecologically valuable land.
       If ASCE can assist you in any way to enact this important 
     legislation, please do not hesitate to contact Brian Pallasch 
     at (202) 326-5140 or Michael Charles at (202) 326-5126 in our 
     Washington Office.
       Sincerely yours,
                                                Thomas L. Jackson,
     President.
                                  ____



                                    National League of Cities,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: On behalf of over 18,000 municipalities 
     across the country represented by the National League of 
     Cities, I am writing to express our support for the 
     Brownfield Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003. The benefits 
     of returning contaminated parcels of land to productive use 
     for commerce and industry are extensive. If environmental 
     conditions are improved, brownfields have the potential to 
     contribute to the economic revitalization of many cities. For 
     this reason, the National League of Cities calls on the 
     federal government to implement a policy that allows these 
     sites to serve a viable economic purpose, while ensuring the 
     public's health is maintained.
       We believe that eco-industrial development, restoring the 
     employment and tax bases, and bringing new investment to 
     distressed communities are necessary and will move forward 
     with the enactment of your brownfields legislation. We 
     support your efforts to provide the Economic Development 
     Administration with funding and tools that will be vital to 
     creating economic redevelopment in economically distressed 
     communities across the nation.
       We look forward to working with you to build bi-partisan 
     support for the Brownfield Redevelopment Act of 2003.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Donald J. Borut,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


                                 S. 645

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Brownfields Redevelopment 
     Assistance Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       Consistent with section 2 of the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121), the purposes of 
     this Act are--
       (1) to provide targeted assistance, including planning 
     assistance, for projects that promote--
       (A) the redevelopment, restoration, and economic recovery 
     of brownfield sites; and
       (B) eco-industrial development; and
       (2) through such assistance, to further the goals of 
     restoring the employment and tax bases of, and bringing new 
     income and private investment to, distressed communities that 
     have not participated fully in the economic growth of the 
     United States because of a lack of an adequate private sector 
     tax base to support essential public services and facilities.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act 
     of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3122) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) through 
     (10) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) through (12), 
     respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(1) Brownfield site.--The term `brownfield site' means a 
     brownfield site (as defined in section 101 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601)) with respect to which 
     an entity has received, or is eligible to receive, funding 
     under section 104(k) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 9604(k)) for site 
     characterization, assessment, or remediation.'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(4) Eco-industrial development.--The term `eco-industrial 
     development' means development conducted in a manner in which 
     businesses cooperate with each other and the local community 
     to efficiently share resources (such as information, 
     materials, water, energy infrastructure, and natural habitat) 
     with the goals of--
       ``(A) economic gains;
       ``(B) improved environmental quality; and
       ``(C) equitable enhancement of human resources in 
     businesses and local communities.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Unused land.--The term `unused land' means any 
     publicly-owned or privately-owned unused, underused, or 
     abandoned land that is not contributing to the quality of 
     life or economic well-being of the community in which the 
     land is located.''.

     SEC. 4. COORDINATION.

       Section 103 of the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3132) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Comprehensive Economic Development 
     Strategies.--'' before ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Brownfield Site Redevelopment.--The Secretary shall 
     coordinate activities relating to the redevelopment of 
     brownfield sites and the promotion of eco-industrial 
     development under this Act with other Federal agencies, 
     States, local governments, consortia of local governments, 
     Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and public-private 
     partnerships.''.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR BROWNFIELD SITE REDEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 210 through 213 as sections 
     211 through 214, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 209 the following:

     ``SEC. 210. GRANTS FOR BROWNFIELD SITE REDEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--On the application of an eligible 
     recipient, the Secretary may make grants for projects to 
     alleviate or prevent conditions of excessive unemployment, 
     underemployment, blight, and infrastructure deterioration 
     associated with brownfield sites, including projects 
     consisting of--
       ``(1) the development of public facilities;
       ``(2) the development of public services;
       ``(3) business development (including funding of a 
     revolving loan fund);
       ``(4) planning;
       ``(5) technical assistance;
       ``(6) training; and
       ``(7) the purchase of environmental insurance with respect 
     to an activity described in any of paragraphs (1) through 
     (3).
       ``(b) Criteria for Grants.--The Secretary may provide a 
     grant for a project under this section only if--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines that the project will assist 
     the area where the project is or will be located to meet, 
     directly or indirectly, a special need arising from--
       ``(A) a high level of unemployment or underemployment, or a 
     high proportion of low-income households;
       ``(B) the existence of blight and infrastructure 
     deterioration;
       ``(C) dislocations resulting from commercial or industrial 
     restructuring;
       ``(D) outmigration and population loss, as indicated by--
       ``(i)(I) depletion of human capital (including young, 
     skilled, or educated populations);
       ``(II) depletion of financial capital (including firms and 
     investment); or
       ``(III) a shrinking tax base; and
       ``(ii) resulting--

       ``(I) fiscal pressure;
       ``(II) restricted access to markets; and
       ``(III) constrained local development potential; or

       ``(E) the closure or realignment of--
       ``(i) a military or Department of Energy installation; or
       ``(ii) any other Federal facility; and
       ``(2) except in the case of a project consisting of 
     planning or technical assistance--
       ``(A) the Secretary has approved a comprehensive economic 
     development strategy for the area where the project is or 
     will be located; and
       ``(B) the project is consistent with the comprehensive 
     economic development strategy.
       ``(c) Particular Community Assistance.--Assistance under 
     this section may include assistance provided for activities 
     identified by a community, the economy of which is injured by 
     the existence of 1 or more brownfield sites, to assist the 
     community in--

[[Page S3894]]

       ``(1) revitalizing affected areas by--
       ``(A) diversifying the economy of the community; or
       ``(B) carrying out industrial or commercial (including 
     mixed use) redevelopment, or eco-industrial development, 
     projects on brownfield sites;
       ``(2) carrying out development that conserves land by--
       ``(A) reusing existing facilities and infrastructure;
       ``(B) reclaiming unused land and abandoned buildings; or
       ``(C) promoting eco-industrial development, and 
     environmentally responsible development, of brownfield sites; 
     or
       ``(3) carrying out a collaborative economic development 
     planning process, developed with broad-based and diverse 
     community participation, that addresses the economic 
     repercussions and opportunities posed by the existence of 
     brownfield sites in an area.
       ``(d) Direct Expenditure or Redistribution by Eligible 
     Recipient.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an eligible 
     recipient of a grant under this section may directly expend 
     the grant funds or may redistribute the funds to public and 
     private entities in the form of a grant, loan, loan 
     guarantee, payment to reduce interest on a loan guarantee, or 
     other appropriate assistance.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Under paragraph (1), an eligible 
     recipient may not provide any grant to a private for-profit 
     entity.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. prec. 3121) is amended by striking the items 
     relating to sections 210 through 213 and inserting the 
     following:

``Sec. 210. Grants for brownfield site redevelopment.
``Sec. 211. Changed project circumstances.
``Sec. 212. Use of funds in projects constructed under projected cost.
``Sec. 213. Reports by recipients.
``Sec. 214. Prohibition on use of funds for attorney's and consultant's 
              fees.''.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title VII of the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3231 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 704. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BROWNFIELD 
                   SITE REDEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to amounts made available 
     under section 701, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out section 210 $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008, to remain available until expended.
       ``(b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 204, subject 
     to section 205, the Federal share of the cost of activities 
     funded with amounts made available under subsection (a) shall 
     be not more than 75 percent.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. prec. 3121) is amended by adding at the end of the 
     items relating to title VII the following:

``Sec. 704. Authorization of appropriations for brownfield site 
              redevelopment.''.
                                  ____

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the textile mills and tanneries of Maine 
helped fuel our country's economic growth. But as these industries 
closed, brownfields replaced once vibrant factories. In many 
communities across Maine these sites remain a legacy of our industrial 
history.
  Left undeveloped, brownfields pose threats to the public health, 
environmental quality and economic strength of our communities. But 
redeveloped, these sites offer opportunities for new industries, job 
growth and economic development. I am pleased to join Senators Levin 
and Jeffords in introducing the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance 
Act. This legislation will provide communities with economic 
development resources to redevelop brownfields and return them to 
productive uses.
  The legislation we are introducing today would provide EDA with 
increased funding flexibility to help States, local communities, Indian 
tribes and nonprofit organizations return brownfield sites to 
productive use. The bill authorizes $60 million each year for five 
years for brownfields redevelopment. This funding authorized by this 
bill will result in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of economic 
benefits for States and local communities through the leveraging of 
local and State funds and private investments.
  The bill gives EDA the authority to provide grants for brownfield 
redevelopment projects, including: development of public facilities and 
public services; business development; activities to help communities 
diversify their economies; and collaborative economic development 
planning. This will help States and communities facilitate effective 
economic development planning for brownfield reuse; develop 
infrastructure necessary to prepare sites for re-entry into the market; 
and, provide the capital necessary to support new business development.
  The decline of the New England textile industry led to the closure of 
many textile mills throughout the region, including the Bates Mill in 
the City of Lewiston, ME. The Bates Mill was once the State's largest 
employer providing more than 5,000 jobs. Economic decline and layoffs 
left the residents of Lewiston with large abandoned mill buildings that 
have been a challenge to redevelop. As a small city of 36,000 people, 
continued support for redeveloping brownfields located in the heart of 
downtown is critical to the city's future economic vitality. In 1998, 
the city received a $200,000 grant from the Environmental Protection 
Agency to help facilitate the cleanup and redevelopment of the one 
million square foot mill complex. Today, the City has redeveloped about 
one-third of the mill and created 1,000 new jobs. The City estimates 
that it will require $54 million to develop the remaining buildings in 
the Bates Mill Complex. The economic development resources provided in 
the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act will help Lewiston and 
other communities across the nation rebuild their communities and 
create new economic opportunity.
  Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally responsible strategy for 
strengthening local economies and reusing existing infrastructure while 
protecting open space. We recycle cans, bottles and newspapers now we 
must try harder to recycle our land. I am proud to be an original co-
sponsor of the bill to aid in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 646. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand and improve coverage of mental health services under the 
medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very 
important piece of legislation, the Medicare Mental Health 
Modernization Act of 2003. I introduce this bill today, along with 
Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), in fond memory of our former 
colleague and friend, the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Paul was a 
crusader in many ways and for many causes; however, we will always 
remember his commitment to ensuring that all Americans have meaningful 
and equitable access to mental health treatment.
  It is because of Paul's efforts that so many Americans, including 
many in the Congress, have rallied around the call for parity in the 
treatment of mental illness. Many of us are all too familiar with the 
stigma that still surrounds mental illness and the disparities in 
accessing treatment that permeate the private health insurance market. 
What many of us do not realize is that these inequities also exist in 
the Medicare program.
  Our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries--our elderly and disabled 
population--have limited access to mental health services. Medicare 
restricts the types of mental health services available to 
beneficiaries and the types of providers who are allowed to offer such 
care. It also charges higher copayments for mental health services than 
it does for all other health care. In order to receive mental health 
care, seniors and the disabled must pay 50 percent of the cost of a 
visit to their mental health specialist, as opposed to the 20 percent 
that they pay for other services. Medicare also limits the number of 
days a beneficiary can receive mental health care in a hospital setting 
to 190 days over an individual's lifetime.
  As we talk about modernizing the Medicare program we must address 
this problem. The need is glaring. Almost 20 percent of Americans over 
age 65 have a serious mental disorder. They suffer from depression, 
Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, late-life schizophrenia and, 
all too often, substance abuse. These are serious illnesses that must 
be treated. Unfortunately, they are often unidentified by primary care 
physicians, or the appropriate services are simply out of reach. 
Americans age 65 and older have the highest rate of suicide of any 
other population in the United States. An alarming 70 percent of 
elderly suicide victims have visited

[[Page S3895]]

their primary care doctor in the month prior to committing suicide.
  Medicare is also the primary source of health insurance for millions 
of non-elderly disabled. More than 20 percent of these individuals 
suffer from mental illness and/or addiction. This very needy population 
faces the same discrimination in their mental health coverage.
  As our population ages, the burden of mental illness on seniors, 
their families, and the health care system will only continue to 
increase. Experts estimate that by the year 2030, 15 million people 
over 65 will have psychiatric disorders, with the number of individuals 
suffering from Alzheimer's disease doubling. If we do not reform the 
Medicare program to provide greater access to detection and treatment 
of mental illness, the cost of not treating these diseases will rapidly 
escalate. Without the appropriate outpatient mental health services, 
too many of our seniors are forced into nursing homes and hospitals. If 
we truly want to modernize Medicare and make it more efficient, we must 
provide access to these services. Not only will they likely reduce 
costs in the long-term, but they will also increase Medicare 
beneficiaries' quality of life.
  The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act takes critical steps to 
address these issues. First, the bill reduces the 50 percent copayment 
for mental health services to 20 percent. The proposed 20 percent 
copayment is the same as the copayment for all other outpatient 
services in Medicare. Second, the bill would provide access to 
intensive residential services for those who are suffering from severe 
mental illness. This will give people with Alzheimer's disease and 
other serious mental illness the opportunity to be cared for in their 
homes or in community-based settings. Third, the bill expands the 
number of qualified mental health professionals eligible to provide 
services through the Medicare program. This includes licensed 
professional mental health counselors, clinical social workers, and 
marriage and family therapists. This expansion of qualified providers 
is critical to ensuring that seniors throughout the nation, 
particularly those in rural areas, are able to receive the services 
they need.
  In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to step forward to support 
the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2003. It is time for 
the Medicare program to stop discriminating against seniors and the 
disabled who are suffering from mental illness.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 647. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for 
Department of Defense funding of continuation of health benefits plan 
coverage for certain Reserves called or ordered to active duty and 
their dependents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to close an 
unfortunate loophole in health insurance coverage for families of 
Reserve and Guard members who are called up for active duty.
  As we face the likelihood of war with Iraq, one hundred and fifty 
thousand members of the National Guard and the Reserves have been 
mobilized for service. These soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are 
standing by their country in a time of national emergency. But unless 
the Congress takes immediate action, too many of the spouses and 
children of these brave men and women may find the quality of their 
heath care reduced.
  Today's military relies more heavily than ever before on the Reserve 
and Guard. Currently, over 150,000 National Guard and reserve soldiers, 
sailors, Marines and airmen have been mobilized. They are spending an 
average of thirteen times longer on active duty today than compared to 
a decade ago.
  Our men and women in uniform are working and training hard for the 
serious challenges before them. They are living in the desert, enduring 
harsh conditions, and contemplating the horrors of the approaching war. 
At the same time, they must put their lives on hold, dealing with 
family crises by phone and email. We must do our best to take care of 
those they have left at home.
  During the Vietnam war, only 20 percent of all Army personnel were 
married. Today over 50 percent of the active military are married. 
These numbers are even higher in the Guard and Reserves. This service 
places heavy strain on the families who are left behind to worry and 
cope with the sudden new demands of running a household alone.
  For the Guard and Reservists' families, a recall to active duty 
brings new bureaucratic challenges. Employers are not required to keep 
paying the health insurance for reservists while they are deployed. 
Many guardsmen and reservists may not be able to afford to pay for 
health care for their families while they are away.
  If a guardsman or reservist is activated for more than thirty days, 
their family is eligible to enroll in the TRICARE program. However, 
during that first month, the family may not have any health insurance. 
In addition, if their family doctor does not participate in TRICARE, 
the family must find a new doctor while coping with all the other 
demands of the service member's absence. A family with a sick child and 
a father or mother sent off to war should not have to cope with the 
added burden of giving up the family doctor they trust.
  The bill I am introducing will assure continuity of health insurance 
coverage for families of Reservists and National Guard personnel called 
to active duty. Under this bill, these families retain the option of 
private health insurance coverage during the period of active duty, 
rather than enrolling in TRICARE.
  The bill amends the COBRA coverage rules to specify that loss of 
employment-based coverage due to active-duty allows them to use the 
COBRA mechanism to retain their health care coverage. The Federal 
Government will pay the cost of premiums not covered by employers. This 
assistance will relieve some of the financial burden on families when 
the service member leaves a more lucrative private sector job to serve 
in the military. The Federal Government will also pay the cost of 
continuing family coverage purchased in the individual insurance 
market, for those who do not have employment-based coverage.
  The cost of the modest additional help for the families of our 
servicemen will be small, since spouses and children who continue to 
use their private insurance policies will not be using TRICARE medical 
services that would otherwise be the government's responsibility.
  This bill will not change the health care coverage for service 
members who will continue to receive health care through the military 
medical system. Nor will it change the health care coverage for active 
duty family members who retain TRICARE eligibility and receive health 
care either through the direct care system or TRICARE network.
  When Reservists and members of the National Guard are called to 
active duty in time of international crisis, they are asked to put 
their lives on the line for their country. The least we can do for them 
is assure that their families can continue to receive quality health 
care without interruption during their absence.
  I urge my colleagues to move promptly to enact this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC March 17, 2003.
     Hon. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Daniels: As you prepare the Administration's 
     request for emergency supplemental appropriations, we urge 
     you to consider an important issue facing our National Guard 
     and Reserve Component troops.
       Today's military relies more heavily than ever before on 
     these forces. Currently, over 150,000 members of the guard 
     and reserve have been mobilized. They are spending an average 
     of thirteen times longer on active duty than their 
     counterparts a decade ago.
       For their families, a recall to active duty brings new 
     bureaucratic challenges. Employers are not required to keep 
     paying for their health insurance coverage while they are 
     deployed, and many of them may not be able to afford to pay 
     for coverage for their families while they are away.
       If reservists or guardsmen are activated for more than 
     thirty days, their families are eligible to enroll in the 
     TRICARE program. However, during that first month, the family 
     may not have any health insurance. In addition, their family 
     doctor may not participate in TRICARE, forcing the family to 
     find a

[[Page S3896]]

     new doctor while coping with all the other demands of the 
     service member's absence.
       To address this problem, we are introducing bills to assure 
     continuity of health insurance coverage for families of 
     reservists and National Guard personnel called to active 
     duty. Under this bill, these families will retain the option 
     of private health insurance coverage during the period of 
     active duty, rather than enrolling in TRICARE. This bill will 
     not change the health care coverage for the reservists or 
     guardsmen who will continue to be covered by TRICARE during 
     active military service.
       The bill modifies the COBRA continuation-of-coverage rules 
     to specify that loss of employment-based converge due to 
     active-duty is a qualifying event for COBRA, so that they 
     can, if they choose, use the COBRA mechanism to retain their 
     health care coverage. The federal government will pay the 
     cost of premiums not covered by employers, as well as the 
     cost of continuing family coverage purchased in the 
     individual market.
       We believe this step is important as part of the overall 
     effort to take care of the families of our men and women in 
     uniform. We urge you to include a proposal to provide 
     continuity of health insurance for reservists and guardsmen 
     in the emergency supplemental.
       With respect and appreciation, and we look forward to 
     working with you on this issue.
           Sincerely,
     Edward M. Kennedy,
       United States Senator.
     Michael Capuano,
       United States Representative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Warner, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Ms. Collins, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 648. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
health professions programs regarding the practice of pharmacy; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Pharmacy 
Education Aid Act along with my colleagues, Senator Enzi, Senator 
Johnson and others. Last year, the Senate recognized and acted to 
address the growing, nationwide shortage of pharmacists, by creating a 
demonstration program under the National Health Service Corps whereby 
pharmacists agree to serve in rural and medically underserved areas in 
exchange for partial loan repayment. I commend my colleagues for 
responding in such a strong, bipartisan way to this critically 
important health care issue. The bill I am introducing today, the 
Pharmacy Education Aid Act seeks to build on that bipartisan step while 
taking a multi-faceted approach to the problem of workforce shortages 
in the pharmacy sector.
  The December 2000 Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, 
report, ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand 
for Pharmacists'' concluded that due to the rapid increase in demand 
for pharmacists and our limited ability to expand the number pharmacy 
education programs to train more pharmacists, the shortage was unlikely 
to abate without significant changes to the current system.
  Pharmacists represent the third largest and most trusted health 
professional group in the United States. In 2000, 190,000 pharmacists 
were in practice. While this figure is expected to grow to 224,500 by 
2010, demand for pharmacists is expected to continue to outpace supply.
  These shortages, while particularly acute in rural and medically 
underserved areas, are felt throughout of health care system. A 
November 2001 GAO report found that, on average, hospitals report 21 
percent of their pharmacist positions are currently unfilled. Vacancy 
rates are even higher in federal health systems, such as the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Indian Health 
Service.
  The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to address these chronic shortfalls 
in the supply and distribution of pharmacists by building upon Title 
VII of the Public Health Service Act, with particular emphasis on 
students with the greatest financial need.
  In addition to enhancing students' opportunities to pursue an 
education in pharmacy, the bill also makes available much needed 
resources to Colleges of Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and 
laboratory space as well as to recruit and retain talented faculty to 
educate future generations of pharmacists.
  As Congress works to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, 
the need for more pharmacist involvement in health care decision 
making, including medication therapy management, formulary development 
and drug utilization review, will be essential to its long-term 
success. We must address the pharmacist shortage now. As such, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues towards expeditious consideration 
and passage of this timely and important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                                February 21, 2003.
     Hon. Judd Gregg, Edward Kennedy, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, 
       Michael Bilirakis, Sherrod Brown.
       The undersigned associations and organizations urge you to 
     ensure Americans continue to have access to comprehensive 
     pharmacy services. During the 107th Congress you recognized 
     how important it is to ensure enough pharmacists are 
     available to care for our nation's citizens, especially the 
     most vulnerable. We were very grateful that the House 
     introduced two bills and the senate passed one bill, all 
     addressing the supply and distribution of pharmacists. We 
     request your support for similar legislation that is soon to 
     be introduced during the 108th Congress. Helping the nation's 
     colleges and schools of pharmacy increase their educational 
     capacity is an important way of assuring access to this 
     critical health care professional.
       ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study of the Supply and 
     Demand for Pharmacists,'' released in December 2000 by the 
     Department of Health and Human Service was just a starting 
     point for raising public awareness of the growing demand for 
     pharmacists. The American Hospital Association released a 
     study in April 2002 that showed vacancy rates for pharmacists 
     in hospitals and health systems exceeded that of nurses. 
     Recent pharmacy workforce reports from North Carolina, Oregon 
     and Washington make it clear that there are imbalances in the 
     supply of pharmacists in rural vs. urban areas. These 
     reports, and others acknowledge that, like the general 
     population, the pharmacist workforce is aging, placing 
     communities at risk of losing access to pharmacy services.
       Congress, in some recent Medicare drug benefit proposals, 
     increases the demand for pharmacists by recognizing the 
     benefits they bring to health care delivery. Retrospective 
     drug utilization review, formulary development, medication 
     therapy management, and prescribing protocols are some of the 
     mechanisms included in proposed legislation. All these 
     mechanisms are dependent on or directly involve a pharmacist. 
     A Medicare prescription drug benefit will dramatically 
     increase the number of prescriptions dispensed. As a result, 
     pharmacists will serve an increasingly important role in 
     utilization control and medication therapy management. This 
     will only place additional workforce pressure on a health 
     profession already in high demand.
       The President also increases the demand for pharmacists 
     with his proposals to expand access to health care and 
     improve health through health promotion activities. Colleges 
     and schools of pharmacy educate and graduate a health care 
     professional that is finding growing practice opportunities 
     across a wide range of clinical and community settings. 
     Supported by public and private grants and funding, colleges 
     and schools of pharmacy are working with community-level 
     health care providers to improve patient safety, boost 
     immunization rates, increase patient compliance for 
     treatments associated with chronic illness, and through 
     health promotion activities, better the health and well being 
     of our nation.
       Increasing the supply of pharmacists is not something that 
     can be accomplished overnight. We know that you face many 
     challenges and competing priorities during the 108th 
     congress. your support and leadership will help meet the 
     demand for the services of an exceptionally knowledgeable 
     health care professional and ensure future access. We 
     recommend you accomplish this by developing and passing 
     legislation that will assist the nations' colleges and 
     schools of pharmacy to increase their educational capacity.
       Thank you for your continued support of pharmacy education 
     and the pharmacy profession, and for your efforts to improve 
     the health and well being of all Americans.
       Academy of Managed Care Pharmacists (AMCP)
       American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP)
       American College of Apothecaries (ACA)
       American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP)
       American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA)
       American Society of Consultant Pharmacists (ASCP)
       American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists (AHSP)
       Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA)
       References: Oregon Health Workforce Project ``Pharmacist 
     Workforce 2002: A Sourcebook,'' December 2002; UNC Cecil G. 
     Sheps Center for Health Services Research ``The Pharmacist 
     Workforce in North Carolina,'' August 2002; Washington 
     Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board

[[Page S3897]]

     ``Health Care Personnel Shortage: Crisis or Opportunity,'' 
     2002; GAO-02-137R ``Supply of Health Workers''; Department of 
     Health and Human Services ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study 
     of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists,'' December 2000; 
     The American Hospital Association, ``In Our Hands: How 
     Hospital Leaders Can Build A Thriving Workforce,'' April 
     2002; Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     Occupational Employment Statistics.
                                  ____

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill to address a 
significant problem in our Nation's healthcare delivery system--the 
growing shortage of pharmacists. I am joined by my distinguished 
colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in the introduction of the 
Pharmacy Education Aid Act of 2003.
  Why is the shortage of pharmacists in our Nation such an important 
concern, and why is this legislation necessary? It is because 
pharmacists are playing an increasingly important role in the delivery 
of quality healthcare, and our academic institutions are currently 
unable to supply the needed pharmacists. This critical link in our 
healthcare system is being stretched precariously thin. In December 
2000, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, issued a report 
which confirmed the shortage of licensed pharmacists in this country.
  I am particularly concerned about the shortage of pharmacists in 
rural and frontier areas like Wyoming. According to the HHS study, ``a 
threat to the rural pharmacists supply has more dire implications since 
in many cases, the pharmacist may be the only available health 
professional.'' We must do more to increase the number of pharmacists 
serving rural areas.
  As the HHS study highlighted, we must take action now to expand the 
pipeline for licensed pharmacists. The Pharmacy Education Aid Act of 
2003 will do so by increasing the likelihood that an individual will 
pursue an education as a pharmacist, that the pharmacy schools will be 
able to provide them with a quality education, and that pharmacists 
will work in facilities having the hardest time recruiting them.
  What does the shortage of pharmacists mean to many Americans? It 
means the closure of local pharmacies. It means a decrease in patient 
counseling and education. It also means an increase in the potential 
for medication errors.
  What will the Pharmacy Education Aid Act mean to many Americans--
particularly those in medically underserved areas? It will mean 
restoring a critical link in their access to quality pharmacy care. It 
also will mean better healthcare overall.
  Last year, the Senate passed this bill unanimously. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues this year on the speedy passage of this bill 
out of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and by 
the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Dodd, 
        and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 650. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
authorize the Food and Drug Administration to require certain research 
into drugs used in pediatric patients; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very 
important subject--one that affects parents, doctors, hospitals, nurses 
and our children each and every day. The subject that I am talking 
about is the safety and efficacy of the medicines that doctors give our 
children when they are sick.
  Nearly six years ago, I was astonished to learn that close to 80 
percent of drugs on the market were not tested for use in children--
yet, doctors were prescribing these drugs to our children. Doctors had 
no choice but to prescribe these drugs for children if they thought the 
medicines would be helpful. And, sometimes the medicines did help--
sometimes a child's pain was relieved, or a child would be able to 
breathe easier or digest food better because of the medicines the 
doctors prescribed them. But, even when the drugs do work, an anxious 
feeling remains among doctors and parents about whether these medicines 
are safe for children. How are doctors and parents to know for certain 
which medicines will work if they haven't been tested for safety and 
efficacy in children?
  There are many examples, of situations where drugs have been 
misprescribed for children because doctors simply weren't aware of the 
effects these drugs would have on kids. For example, the drug, 
Neurontin, which is used to treat chronic pain, was given to children 
without being properly tested, and doctors eventually learned they were 
under-dosing children by 50 percent. That means children were suffering 
from pain because they were being under-dosed. They weren't being given 
the proper dose of medication to relieve their pain.
  Another drug, Lithium, which has been prescribed to treat bipolar 
disorder since 1940 was never tested for long-term use in children 
until just a few months ago. This is an example of a drug that doctors 
have been prescribing ``off-label'' for years, and only now we are 
finally getting some evidence of its effect in children. According to 
doctors, the testing of Lithium revealed important information because 
children who suffer from bipolar disorder cycle between mania and 
depression quicker than adults, and they can even have signs of both at 
the same time. Unlike adults, they don't have periods of normalcy. 
Doctors now know that Lithium can be used to treat bipolar disorder in 
children.
  Doctors have taken a chance in prescribing medicines for children. 
Doctors tell parents to cut a pill in half or in quarters so it can be 
given to a child. Doctors use the best information they have to 
determine how much or what kind of medicines to give a child. That is 
all they can do when the medicines children need have not been tested 
for their use.
  Doctors and pediatricians should not be left to guess how much 
medicine our children should receive. And, parents shouldn't have to 
feel anxious or question whether the half a pill that's been ground up 
and put in applesauce will still be effective in treating their child--
or whether it's even safe for their child to take.
  It's been over a year now since the Senate passed and the President 
signed into law the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children's Act. As many of 
my colleagues know, that law has been part of a solution--but just a 
part of a solution--to address the problem I just mentioned. The law 
provides a six-month patent extension to pharmaceutical companies in 
exchange for the testing of medicines in children. And, for as long as 
the bill has been law, the Food and Drug Administration is reporting 
its success in ensuring that more medicines are tested for use in 
children. With the incentive provided by Best Pharmaceuticals, 
companies are seeing the value of studying their drugs in children and 
are applying for the patent extension.
  But, the Best Pharmaceuticals incentive cannot work alone to ensure 
that medicines in children do not go untested. The incentive in the 
Best Act was never intended to work alone. When the Best Act became 
law, there was already a rule on the books that helped ensure that no 
medicine used to treat children, including vaccines or other biologics, 
would go untested. Back in 1997, the Food and Drug Administration 
proposed what is known today as the Pediatric Rule. The Pediatric Rule 
allowed FDA to require that the drugs the agency felt are important for 
children are safe, effective, and properly labeled for children.
  Unfortunately, the Pediatric Rule has come under legal challenge, 
with a District Court ruling just a few months ago stating that FDA 
lacked the statutory authority to require pediatric studies. This was a 
troubling step backward for children's health--a troubling step at a 
time when 75 percent of the medicines on the market still aren't tested 
and labeled for pediatric use. We've made some improvements from the 80 
percent of medicines on the market, but 75 percent is still too much. 
Without the Pediatric Rule, new medicines and biologics coming onto the 
market are not required to be tested for use in children. Congress 
needs to make sure that the FDA continues to have every tool--that 
includes the market incentives and the pediatric rule--available to 
them to ensure that drugs for children are tested for safety and 
efficacy and that they are labeled properly.
  Everyday that a drug manufacturer chooses not to participate in the 
incentive program, the number of medicines

[[Page S3898]]

that go untested for use in children increases. Everyday that we don't 
have the Pediatric Rule, we sacrifice our children's safety. Medicines 
that are used by children should be tested for safety and efficacy. 
That is why Senators Clinton, Gregg, Dodd, and Kennedy and I are 
introducing a bill today--the Pediatric Research Equity Act--that would 
ensure that the Pediatric Rule continues to work alongside the Best 
Act, so that children will remain on safe footing when it comes to the 
testing of the medications they use.

  Congress needs to make sure the Pediatric Rule stays in place, 
because right now, the Pediatric Rule and the Best Act incentive work 
together to ensure that drugs are tested for use in children. As I said 
already, the Best Act was never intended to substitute the rule, but 
rather to reinforce and work with the rule. For example, the Pediatric 
Rule may be invoked in instances where pediatric information is 
essential, but the patent exclusivity is no longer available.
  The Pediatric Rule also applies to biologics, whereas the Best 
Pharmaceuticals does not. A significant portion of therapeutics used in 
children, including many cancer treatments, are biological products 
(products that include a live agent). Because Best Pharmaceuticals does 
not apply to biologics, the Pediatric Rule is the only way to ensure 
pediatric labeling.
  Finally, the Best Pharmaceuticals is voluntary. For any number of 
reasons, including insufficient sales, a manufacturer may choose not to 
conduct the testing necessary to receive additional exclusivity under 
the Best Act. But, just because a drug manufacturer chooses not to 
study the drug in children does not mean that drug is not critical to 
the proper treatment of our children. Without the Pediatric Rule, there 
is no way to guarantee that a drug that is used in the pediatric 
population is tested for children's use.
  With the establishment of the Pediatric Rule and the financial 
incentives of the Best Pharmaceuticals law, there has been a dramatic 
increase in the number of studies that have been undertaken. Let me 
quote from the Government's Response to Plaintiff's Notice of 
Reauthorization of FDA Modernization Act. This is the document that the 
government filed to defend the lawsuit against the Rule: ``These two 
options [the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric 
Rule] have resulted in a number of drugs being labeled for use in 
pediatric populations. As of March 31, 2002, 94 applications containing 
complete or partial pediatric use information had been submitted to the 
agency. Of these 94 applications, 45 are attributable to the statutory 
exclusivity provisions. FDA attributes 48 of the 94 applications to the 
authority of the pediatric rule alone.''
  The bill that my colleagues and I are introducing today would help 
maintain that progress--not erode it. Our bill would provide the FDA 
with the authority it needs to ensure that the medicines children take 
are studied for safety and efficacy. And, our bill would give FDA this 
authority in a way so that it does not conflict with the incentives 
provided in the Best Pharmaceuticals Act.
  Our bill would preserve the waiver and deferral process, so that drug 
companies can get waivers or deferrals for a range of legitimate 
reasons. Drug companies could get a waiver or deferral of studies for 
safety or ethical concerns. A drug company could get a waiver or 
deferral if the pediatric testing would interfere with the drug's 
availability for adults.
  Ultimately, though, our bill would help make certain that children 
are no longer a therapeutic afterthought by ensuring that all new drugs 
are studied for pediatric use at the time a drug comes to market. This 
would put children on a level playing field with adults for the first 
time. Our children deserve no less, and I encourage my colleagues to 
join in support of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 650

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pediatric Research Equity 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. RESEARCH INTO PEDIATRIC USES FOR DRUGS AND BIOLOGICAL 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter V of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 505A the following:

     ``SEC. 505B. RESEARCH INTO PEDIATRIC USES FOR DRUGS AND 
                   BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS.

       ``(a) New Drugs and Biological Products.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person that submits an application (or 
     supplement to an application)--
       ``(A) under section 505 for a new active ingredient, new 
     indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route 
     of administration; or
       ``(B) under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 262) for a new active ingredient, new indication, 
     new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of 
     administration;

     shall submit with the application the assessments described 
     in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Assessments.--
       ``(A) In general.--The assessments referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall contain data, gathered using appropriate 
     formulations for each age group for which the assessment is 
     required, that are adequate--
       ``(i) to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug or 
     the biological product for the claimed indications in all 
     relevant pediatric subpopulations; and
       ``(ii) to support dosing and administration for each 
     pediatric subpopulation for which the drug or the biological 
     product is safe and effective.
       ``(B) Similar course of disease or similar effect of drug 
     or biological product.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the course of the disease and the 
     effects of the drug are sufficiently similar in adults and 
     pediatric patients, the Secretary may conclude that pediatric 
     effectiveness can be extrapolated from adequate and well-
     controlled studies in adults, usually supplemented with other 
     information obtained in pediatric patients, such as 
     pharmacokinetic studies.
       ``(ii) Extrapolation between age groups.--A study may not 
     be needed in each pediatric age group if data from 1 age 
     group can be extrapolated to another age group.
       ``(3) Deferral.--On the initiative of the Secretary or at 
     the request of the applicant, the Secretary may defer 
     submission of some or all assessments required under 
     paragraph (1) until a specified date after approval of the 
     drug or issuance of the license for a biological product if--
       ``(A) the Secretary finds that--
       ``(i) the drug or biological product is ready for approval 
     for use in adults before pediatric studies are complete;
       ``(ii) pediatric studies should be delayed until additional 
     safety or effectiveness data have been collected; or
       ``(iii) there is another appropriate reason for deferral; 
     and
       ``(B) the applicant submits to the Secretary--
       ``(i) certification of the grounds for deferring the 
     assessments;
       ``(ii) a description of the planned or ongoing studies; and
       ``(iii) evidence that the studies are being conducted or 
     will be conducted with due diligence and at the earliest 
     possible time.
       ``(4) Waivers.--
       ``(A) Full waiver.--On the initiative of the Secretary or 
     at the request of an applicant, the Secretary shall grant a 
     full waiver, as appropriate, of the requirement to submit 
     assessments for a drug or biological product under this 
     subsection if the applicant certifies and the Secretary finds 
     that--
       ``(i) necessary studies are impossible or highly 
     impracticable (because, for example, the number of patients 
     is so small or the patients are geographically dispersed);
       ``(ii) there is evidence strongly suggesting that the drug 
     or biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in all 
     pediatric age groups; or
       ``(iii) the drug or biological product--

       ``(I) does not represent a meaningful therapeutic benefit 
     over existing therapies for pediatric patients; and
       ``(II) is not likely to be used in a substantial number of 
     pediatric patients.

       ``(B) Partial waiver.--On the initiative of the Secretary 
     or at the request of an applicant, the Secretary shall grant 
     a partial waiver, as appropriate, of the requirement to 
     submit assessments for a drug or biological product under 
     this subsection with respect to a specific pediatric age 
     group if the applicant certifies and the Secretary finds 
     that--
       ``(i) necessary studies are impossible or highly 
     impracticable (because, for example, the number of patients 
     in that age group is so small or patients in that age group 
     are geographically dispersed);
       ``(ii) there is evidence strongly suggesting that the drug 
     or biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in that 
     age group;
       ``(iii) the drug or biological product--

       ``(I) does not represent a meaningful therapeutic benefit 
     over existing therapies for pediatric patients in that age 
     group; and
       ``(II) is not likely to be used by a substantial number of 
     pediatric patients in that age group; or

       ``(iv) the applicant can demonstrate that reasonable 
     attempts to produce a pediatric

[[Page S3899]]

     formulation necessary for that age group have failed.
       ``(C) Pediatric formulation not possible.--If a waiver is 
     granted on the ground that it is not possible to develop a 
     pediatric formulation, the waiver shall cover only the 
     pediatric groups requiring that formulation.
       ``(D) Labeling requirement.--If the Secretary grants a full 
     or partial waiver because there is evidence that a drug or 
     biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in 
     pediatric populations, the information shall be included in 
     the labeling for the drug or biological product.
       ``(b) Marketed Drugs and Biological Products.--
       ``(1) In general.--After providing notice in the form of a 
     letter and an opportunity for written response and a meeting, 
     which may include an advisory committee meeting, the 
     Secretary may (by order in the form of a letter) require the 
     holder of an approved application for a drug under section 
     505 or the holder of a license for a biological product under 
     section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) 
     to submit by a specified date the assessments described in 
     subsection (a)(2) if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(A)(i) the drug or biological product is used for a 
     substantial number of pediatric patients for the labeled 
     indications; and
       ``(ii) the absence of adequate labeling could pose 
     significant risks to pediatric patients; or
       ``(B)(i) there is reason to believe that the drug or 
     biological product would represent a meaningful therapeutic 
     benefit over existing therapies for pediatric patients for 1 
     or more of the claimed indications; and
       ``(ii) the absence of adequate labeling could pose 
     significant risks to pediatric patients.
       ``(2) Waivers.--
       ``(A) Full waiver.--At the request of an applicant, the 
     Secretary shall grant a full waiver, as appropriate, of the 
     requirement to submit assessments under this subsection if 
     the applicant certifies and the Secretary finds that--
       ``(i) necessary studies are impossible or highly 
     impracticable (because, for example, the number of patients 
     in that age group is so small or patients in that age group 
     are geographically dispersed); or
       ``(ii) there is evidence strongly suggesting that the drug 
     or biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in all 
     pediatric age groups.
       ``(B) Partial waiver.--At the request of an applicant, the 
     Secretary shall grant a partial waiver, as appropriate, of 
     the requirement to submit assessments under this subsection 
     with respect to a specific pediatric age group if the 
     applicant certifies and the Secretary finds that--
       ``(i) necessary studies are impossible or highly 
     impracticable (because, for example, the number of patients 
     in that age group is so small or patients in that age group 
     are geographically dispersed);
       ``(ii) there is evidence strongly suggesting that the drug 
     or biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in that 
     age group;
       ``(iii)(I) the drug or biological product--

       ``(aa) does not represent a meaningful therapeutic benefit 
     over existing therapies for pediatric patients in that age 
     group; and
       ``(bb) is not likely to be used in a substantial number of 
     pediatric patients in that age group; and

       ``(II) the absence of adequate labeling could not pose 
     significant risks to pediatric patients; or
       ``(iv) the applicant can demonstrate that reasonable 
     attempts to produce a pediatric formulation necessary for 
     that age group have failed.
       ``(C) Pediatric formulation not possible.--If a waiver is 
     granted on the ground that it is not possible to develop a 
     pediatric formulation, the waiver shall cover only the 
     pediatric groups requiring that formulation.
       ``(D) Labeling requirement.--If the Secretary grants a full 
     or partial waiver because there is evidence that a drug or 
     biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in 
     pediatric populations, the information shall be included in 
     the labeling for the drug or biological product.
       ``(3) Relationship to other pediatric provisions.--
       ``(A) No assessment without written request.--No assessment 
     may be required under paragraph (1) for a drug subject to an 
     approved application under section 505 unless--
       ``(i) the Secretary has issued a written request for a 
     related pediatric study under section 505A(c) of this Act or 
     section 409I of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     284m);
       ``(ii)(I) if the request was made under section 505A(c)--

       ``(aa) the recipient of the written request does not agree 
     to the request; or
       ``(bb) the Secretary does not receive a response as 
     specified under section 505A(d)(4)(A); or

       ``(II) if the request was made under section 409I of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284m)--

       ``(aa) the recipient of the written request does not agree 
     to the request; or
       ``(bb) the Secretary does not receive a response as 
     specified under section 409I(c)(2) of that Act; and

       ``(iii)(I) the Secretary certifies under subparagraph (B) 
     that there are insufficient funds under sections 409I and 499 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284m, 290b) to 
     conduct the study; or
       ``(II) the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a 
     certification that certifies that--

       ``(aa) no contract or grant has been awarded under section 
     409I or 499 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284m, 
     290b); and
       ``(bb) not less than 270 days have passed since the date of 
     a certification under subparagraph (B) that there are 
     sufficient funds to conduct the study.

       ``(B) No agreement to request.--Not later than 60 days 
     after determining that no holder will agree to the written 
     request (including a determination that the Secretary has not 
     received a response specified under section 505A(d) of this 
     Act or section 409I of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284m), the Secretary shall certify whether the 
     Secretary has sufficient funds to conduct the study under 
     section 409I or 499 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284m, 290b), taking into account the prioritization 
     under section 409I.
       ``(c) Meaningful Therapeutic Benefit.--For the purposes of 
     paragraph (4)(A)(iii)(I) and (4)(B)(iii)(I) of subsection (a) 
     and paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B)(iii)(I)(aa) of subsection 
     (b), a drug or biological product shall be considered to 
     represent a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing 
     therapies if the Secretary estimates that--
       ``(1) if approved, the drug or biological product would 
     represent a significant improvement in the treatment, 
     diagnosis, or prevention of a disease, compared with marketed 
     products adequately labeled for that use in the relevant 
     pediatric population; or
       ``(2) the drug or biological product is in a class of 
     products or for an indication for which there is a need for 
     additional options.
       ``(d) Submission of Assessments.--If a person fails to 
     submit an assessment described in subsection (a)(2), or a 
     request for approval of a pediatric formulation described in 
     subsection (a) or (b), in accordance with applicable 
     provisions of subsections (a) and (b)--
       ``(1) the drug or biological product that is the subject of 
     the assessment or request may be considered misbranded and 
     subject to relevant enforcement action (except that the drug 
     or biological product shall not be subject to action under 
     section 303); but
       ``(2) the failure to submit the assessment or request shall 
     not be the basis for a proceeding--
       ``(A) to withdraw approval for a drug under section 505(e); 
     or
       ``(B) to revoke the license for a biological product under 
     section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).
       ``(e) Meetings.--Before and during the investigational 
     process for a new drug or biological product, the Secretary 
     shall meet at appropriate times with the sponsor of the new 
     drug or biological product to discuss--
       ``(1) information that the sponsor submits on plans and 
     timelines for pediatric studies; or
       ``(2) any planned request by the sponsor for waiver or 
     deferral of pediatric studies.
       ``(f) Scope of Authority.--Nothing in this section provides 
     to the Secretary any authority to require a pediatric 
     assessment of any drug or biological product, or any 
     assessment regarding other populations or uses of a drug or 
     biological product, other than the pediatric assessments 
     described in this section.
       ``(g) Orphan Drugs.--Unless the Secretary requires 
     otherwise by regulation, this section does not apply to any 
     drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been 
     granted under section 526.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 505(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) is amended in the second 
     sentence--
       (A) by striking ``and (F)'' and inserting ``(F)''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, and 
     (G) any assessments required under section 505B.''.
       (2) Section 505A(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 355a(h)) is amended--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Regulations'' 
     and inserting ``Pediatric Research Requirements''; and
       (B) by striking ``pursuant to regulations promulgated by 
     the Secretary'' and inserting ``by a provision of law 
     (including a regulation) other than this section''.
       (3) Section 351(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 262(a)(2)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Pediatric studies.--A person that submits an 
     application for a license under this paragraph shall submit 
     to the Secretary as part of the application any assessments 
     required under section 505B of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act.''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Abbreviated New Drug Application.--Section 505A of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is 
     amended in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(2) and 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c)(2) by striking 
     ``505(j)(4)(B)'' and inserting ``505(j)(5)(B)''.
       (b) Pediatric Advisory Committee.--
       (1) Section 505A(i)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a(i)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``Advisory Subcommittee of the Anti-Infective Drugs'' each 
     place it appears.
       (2) Section 14 of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 284m note; Public Law 107-109) is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``PHARMACOLOGY'';
       (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``(42 U.S.C. 217a),'' 
     and inserting (42 U.S.C. 217a) or other appropriate 
     authority,'';

[[Page S3900]]

       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and in consultation 
     with the Director of the National Institutes of Health''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and 505A'' and 
     inserting ``505A, and 505B''; and
       (D) by striking ``pharmacology'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``therapeutics''.
       (3) Section 15(a)(2)(A) of the Best Pharmaceuticals for 
     Children Act (115 Stat. 1419) is amended by striking 
     ``Pharmacology''.
       (4) Section 16(1)(C) of the Best Pharmaceuticals for 
     Children Act (21 U.S.C. 355a note; Public Law 107-109) is 
     amended by striking ``Advisory Subcommittee of the Anti-
     Infective Drugs''.
       (5) Section 17(b)(1) of the Best Pharmaceuticals for 
     Children Act (21 U.S.C. 355b(b)(1)) is amended in the second 
     sentence by striking ``Advisory Subcommittee of the Anti-
     Infective Drugs''.
       (6) Paragraphs (8), (9), and (11) of section 409I(c) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284m(c)) are amended by 
     striking ``Advisory Subcommittee of the Anti-Infective 
     Drugs'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act take effect October 17, 2002.
       (b) No Limitation of Authority.--Neither the lack of 
     guidance or regulations to implement this Act or the 
     amendments made by this Act nor the pendency of the process 
     for issuing guidance or regulations shall limit the authority 
     of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under, or defer 
     any requirement under, this Act or those amendments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 651. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to clarify 
Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for 
the majority of the trails in the System, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 651

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Trails System 
     Willing Seller Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In spite of commendable efforts by State and local 
     governments and private volunteer trail groups to develop, 
     operate, and maintain the national scenic and national 
     historic trails designated by Act of Congress in section 5(a) 
     of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)), the 
     rate of progress towards developing and completing the trails 
     is slower than anticipated.
       (2) Nine of the twelve national scenic and historic trails 
     designated between 1978 and 1986 are subject to restrictions 
     totally excluding Federal authority for land acquisition 
     outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered 
     area.
       (3) To complete these nine trails as intended by Congress, 
     acquisition authority to secure necessary rights-of-way and 
     historic sites and segments, limited to acquisition from 
     willing sellers only, and specifically excluding the use of 
     condemnation, should be extended to the Secretary of the 
     Federal department administering these trails.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING MULTIJURISDICTIONAL 
                   AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM.

       It is the sense of the Congress that in order to address 
     the problems involving multijurisdictional authority over the 
     National Trails System, the Secretary of the Federal 
     department with jurisdiction over a national scenic or 
     historic trail should--
       (1) cooperate with appropriate officials of each State and 
     political subdivisions of each State in which the trail is 
     located and private persons with an interest in the trail to 
     pursue the development of the trail; and
       (2) be granted sufficient authority to purchase lands and 
     interests in lands from willing sellers that are critical to 
     the completion of the trail.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LANDS FROM WILLING SELLERS FOR 
                   CERTAIN TRAILS OF THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM 
                   ACT.

       (a) Intent.--It is the intent of Congress that lands and 
     interests in lands for the nine components of the National 
     Trails System affected by the amendments made by subsection 
     (b) shall only be acquired by the Federal Government from 
     willing sellers.
       (b) Limited Acquisition Authority.--
       (1) Oregon national historic trail.--Paragraph (3) of 
     section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``No lands or interests therein outside the 
     exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be 
     acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with 
     the consent of the owner thereof.''.
       (2) Mormon pioneer national historic trail.--Paragraph (4) 
     of such section is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``No lands or interests therein outside the 
     exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be 
     acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with 
     the consent of the owner thereof.''.
       (3) Continental divide national scenic trail.--Paragraph 
     (5) of such section is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``No lands or interests therein 
     outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered 
     area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail 
     except with the consent of the owner thereof.''.
       (4) Lewis and clark national historic trail.--Paragraph (6) 
     of such section is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``No lands or interests therein outside the 
     exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be 
     acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with 
     the consent of the owner thereof.''.
       (5) Iditarod national historic trail.--Paragraph (7) of 
     such section is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``No lands or interests therein outside the 
     exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be 
     acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with 
     the consent of the owner thereof.''.
       (6) North country national scenic trail.--Paragraph (8) of 
     such section is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``No lands or interests therein outside the 
     exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be 
     acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with 
     the consent of the owner thereof.''.
       (7) Ice age national scenic trail.--Paragraph (10) of such 
     section is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``No lands or interests therein outside the 
     exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be 
     acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with 
     the consent of the owner thereof.''.
       (8) Potomac heritage national scenic trail.--Paragraph (11) 
     of such section is amended in the fourth sentence by 
     inserting before the period the following: ``except with the 
     consent of the owner thereof.''.
       (9) Nez perce national historic trail.--Paragraph (14) of 
     such section is amended in the fourth sentence by inserting 
     before the period the following: ``except with the consent of 
     the owner thereof.''.
       (c) Protection for Willing Sellers.--Section 7 of the 
     National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1246) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Protection for Willing Sellers.--If the Federal 
     Government fails to make payment in accordance with a 
     contract for the sale of land or an interest in land for one 
     of the national scenic or historic trails designated by 
     section 5(a), the seller may utilize any of the remedies 
     available to the seller under all applicable law, including 
     electing to void the sale.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 10(c) of the National 
     Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1249(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (2) by striking ``(2) Except'' and inserting ``Except''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Chafee (for himself, Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. DeWine, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Warner, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Smith, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bunning, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kerry, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 652. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
extend modifications to DSH allotments provided under the Medicare, 
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
Senators Bob Graham, DeWine, Feinstein, Warner, Cantwell, Smith, 
Clinton, Bunning, Rockefeller, Murray, Kennedy, Landrieu, Kerry, and 
Hutchison in introducing the Access to Hospitals Act of 2003. This 
legislation will freeze Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, 
reductions at Fiscal Year 2002 levels, thereby eliminating the 
scheduled Fiscal Year 2003 drop-off in Federal Medicaid DSH funding. 
This bill will also provide a growth rate adjustment to help compensate 
for the increases in the cost of providing care to the most needy and 
indigent patients.
  This legislation is necessary because the Medicaid DSH provision 
included in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
Protection Act of 2000, BIPA, expired on October 1, 2002. This 
provision provided crucial, but temporary, relief from the deep 
reductions in State Medicaid allotments that were contained in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA. With the BIPA provision, Congress 
recognized that the funding cuts in the BBA could severely undermine 
health care safety net services throughout our Nation. These payments 
help reimburse hospitals' costs of treating Medicaid patients, 
particularly those with complex medical needs, and make it possible for 
communities to care for those who lack

[[Page S3901]]

health coverage. At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate continues 
to climb above 40 million, it makes little sense to be reducing much 
needed Medicaid DSH payments to safety net hospitals.
  Hospitals in Rhode Island will absorb approximately $400 million in 
reductions as a result of changes made to the Medicare and Medicaid 
programs in the BBA. Nine out of fifteen hospitals in my State had 
operating loses in Fiscal Year 2002. After the BBA was enacted, it was 
predicted that cuts in Federal Medicare and Medicaid payments would 
cost hospitals in Rhode Island $220 million over five years; however, 
this estimate has proven to be about $180 million off the mark. Every 
other State is experiencing similar problems. According to the American 
Hospital Association, hospitals lost almost $10 million on Medicaid and 
uninsured patients in 2000. This translates into an estimated loss of 
more than $42 million over five years. Clearly, more needs to be done 
to keep our vulnerable safety net hospitals from continuing on this 
downward spiral.
  This legislation represents a common-sense approach that will help 
prevent the further weakening of our Nation's safety net hospitals and 
the long-term viability of our health care system.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 652

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Hospitals Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF MEDICAID DSH ALLOTMENT ADJUSTMENTS 
                   UNDER BIPA 2000.

       (a) In General.--Section 1923(f) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f))--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``through 2002'' and 
     inserting ``through 2000'';
       (B) by striking ``ending with fiscal year 2002'' and 
     inserting ``ending with fiscal year 2000''; and
       (C) in the table in such paragraph, by striking the columns 
     labeled ``FY 01'' and ``FY02'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (4)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4), as added by section 701(a)(1) of the 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554)--
       (A) by striking ``for fiscal years 2001 and 2002'' in the 
     heading;
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (2), the'' and inserting ``The'';
       (C) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by striking ``No application'' and inserting 
     ``Application''; and
       (ii) by striking ``without regard to'' and inserting 
     ``taking into account''.
       (b) Increase in Medicaid DSH Allotment for the District of 
     Columbia.--
       (1) In general.--Effective for DSH allotments beginning 
     with fiscal year 2003, the item in the table contained in 
     section 1923(f)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396r-4(f)(2)) for the District of Columbia for the DSH 
     allotment for FY 00 (fiscal year 2000) is amended by striking 
     ``32'' and inserting ``49''.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be 
     construed as preventing the application of section 1923(f)(4) 
     of the Social Security Act (as amended by subsection (a)) to 
     the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2003 and subsequent 
     fiscal years.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to DSH allotments for fiscal years beginning with 
     fiscal year 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bond, and Mr. 
        Hollings):
  S. 654. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
enhance the access of medicare beneficiaries who live in medically 
underserved areas to critical primary and preventive health care 
benefits, to improve the Medicare+Choice program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare 
Safety Net Act of 2003.'' I am particularly pleased to introduce this 
bill with my good friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman. Last year we 
worked together on this bill, and I am confident that with the 
modifications that we made to the legislation, we will be able to get 
it enacted into law.
  This legislation will improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to 
primary care services and preventative treatments by increasing access 
to Community Health Centers. Community Health Centers, also known as 
federally qualified health centers, provide care to more than 1 million 
medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries. In many cases, Community 
Health Centers are the only source of primary and preventive services 
to which Medicare beneficiaries have access. This is especially true 
for people living in America's rural medically underserved areas.
  In Maine, nearly 20 percent of all Community Health Center patients 
are on Medicare, and this figure is expected to rise dramatically in 
the coming years as 25 percent of health center patients will be aging 
into Medicare in the upcoming decades.
  Besides primary and preventive care services, Community Health 
Centers provide other crucial services to seniors and the disabled, 
including treatment of chronic diseases, like diabetes and 
hypertension, mental health services and prescribed medications. 
Community Health Centers also provide transportation services or 
arrange for transportation that allows seniors to access health care in 
the absence of public transportation or a personal vehicle. In short, 
Community Health Centers provide the ease of ``one-stop health care 
shopping,'' meaning that seniors, instead of moving from location to 
location to receive comprehensive primary health services, typically 
can receive all of their essential primary care in one place.
  The Medicare Safety Net Access Act makes four changes to the Medicare 
program to ensure that Community Health Centers can fully participate 
in the Medicare program and provide seniors with the vital services. 
Ensuring that Medicare pays its fair share is important to the 
stability of Community Health Centers. While one in five of all Health 
Center patients in Maine are Medicare beneficiaries, Medicare 
represents only 17 percent of total Health Center revenues. For Health 
Centers to remain a viable part of the health care delivery system, we 
must make changes.
  Because Medicare currently does not reimburse health centers for the 
full cost of providing many vital services, like mammograms, nutrition 
assistance, laboratory and x-rays, health centers must utilize federal 
grant funding intended to serve the uninsured to cover these costs. 
This bill will require that Medicare, like state Medicaid programs, 
allow health centers to provide all Medicare-covered ambulatory 
services to Medicare beneficiaries in their communities.
  Further, Community Health Centers face many challenges in their fight 
to remain in business and serve their communities. In rural communities 
that have Community Health Centers, the health center physicians often 
continue treating patients when they enter long-term care facilities, 
such as a nursing home. And while Congress took steps to ensure that 
the new SNF prospective payment system did not adversely affect this 
relationship, it was not successful in identifying all of the services 
that are provided. This bill will add health centers to the current 
list of providers that can bill for services provided to patients in a 
hospital or nursing home.
  Given the role that Health Centers play in serving low-income and 
uninsured members of the community, providers often are willing to 
establish special arrangements with the Health Centers to provide 
additional assistance to these clients. An example of this type of 
arrangement is offering a reduced price for laboratory work for clients 
of a Community Health Center. However, under Federal anti-kickback laws 
this and other arrangements could be deemed illegal. Given the 
importance of developing community support for Health Centers and the 
need to encourage private-public partnerships to ensure that community 
financial support exists to care for low-income and uninsured 
individuals, this bill creates a safe harbor under the anti-kickback 
statute.
  The final step that this legislation takes to improve access to 
primary and preventative services for Medicare beneficiaries is to 
ensure that Medicare covers a Community Health Center's cost of 
providing care to

[[Page S3902]]

Medicare+Choice beneficiaries. While the federal government requires 
Medicare, under the traditional fee-for-service program, to reimburse 
health centers for their cost to deliver care to beneficiaries, the 
same requirement does not exist for Medicare+Choice plans. This bill 
would require Medicare, like the Medicaid program, to provide wrap-
around payments covering the difference between the amount paid to the 
health center under the managed care arrangement and the amount the 
health center would have received under traditional Medicare.
  By making these four straightforward changes, we will be able to 
enhance the care that all Medicare beneficiaries receive, especially 
those living in underserved communities. And we will ensure that 
Medicare patients are not diluting federal funding intended to help the 
41 million Americans that were uninsured in 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Corzine, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S.J. Res. 11. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for women 
and men; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Murray, Cantwell, 
Corzine, Dayton, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer, Stabenow, Clinton, 
Durbin, Landrieu, Harkin, Feingold, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Feinstein, 
Boxer and I are re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the 
Constitution. In doing so, we reaffirm our strong commitment to equal 
rights for men and women.
  Adoption of the ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms 
protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the 
beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage long and 
difficult battles to win the rights that men possess automatically 
because they are male. In 1920, we amended the Constitution to 
guarantee women the right to vote, and we must do so again to eliminate 
discrimination against women. A constitutional amendment is necessary 
to do so, because existing statutory prohibitions against 
discrimination have clearly failed to give women the assurance of 
equality with men.
  Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 
1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce 
and the vast majority of areas of the economy. Today, women earn less 
than 75 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even 
greater for women of color. In the year 2000, African American women 
earned just 64 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women 
earned only 52 percent. Women with college and professional degrees 
have achieved advances in a number of professional and managerial 
occupations in recent years--yet more than 60 percent of working women 
are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, 
traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households 
continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
  The routine discrimination that so many women so often face proves 
that there is still a need for the ERA today. A bolder effort is 
clearly needed to enable Congress and the States to live up to our 
commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all 
discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of 
women across the country to obtain equal treatment.
  We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that 
achieving the ERA's adoption will not be easy. But its extraordinary 
significance requires us to continue the battle. I urge my colleagues 
to approve the ERA in this Congress, and join the battle for 
ratification in the States. Women have waited long enough for full 
recognition of their equal rights by the Constitution.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of our joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 11

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be 
     denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
     account of sex.
       ``Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this 
     article by appropriate legislation.
       ``Section 3. This article shall take effect two years after 
     the date of ratification.''.

                          ____________________