[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.''.
____________________