[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 2, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4704-S4715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Domenici, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Byrd, 
        Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 763. A bill to designate the Federal building and United States 
courthouse located at 46 Ohio Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the 
``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse''; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name 
the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 46 East 
Ohio Street in Indianapolis, IN, as the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building 
and United States Courthouse.''
  I am pleased to introduce this measure today to honor my colleague 
from Indiana, Senator Bayh. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, 
Mr. Levin, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Stevens, who served in the Senate with 
Senator Bayh during his tenure 1963-1981.
  Birch Evan Bayh was born in Terre Haute in 1928. He attended the 
public schools; served in the United States Army 1946-1948; graduated 
Purdue University School of Agriculture at Lafayette in 1951; and 
attended Indiana State University, 1952-1953. Bayh graduated from the 
Indiana University School of Law in 1960; and was admitted to the 
Indiana bar in 1961.
  He worked as a lawyer and farmer in Terre Haute, and served as a 
representative to the Indiana General Assembly from 1954 to 1962. In 
the Assembly, he rose to become minority leader in 1957 and 1961 and 
Speaker of the House in 1959. Senator Bayh was first elected to the 
U.S. Senate in 1962; reelected in 1968 and 1974; and served from 
January 3, 1963, to January 3, 1981.
  I am pleased to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate at 
the request of Representative Carson who introduced a bill in the House 
of Representatives. I hope this measure will be approved by the 
Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 764. A bill to extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are 
introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill 
to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, 
tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law 
enforcement officers. This bill represents another in a series of law 
enforcement initiatives on which I have had the privilege to work with 
my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. The Senator brings 
to the table invaluable experience in this area, from his distinguished 
service as a State's attorney in Vermont, a nationally recognized 
prosecutor, and as the ranking member of the Chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. We are pleased to be joined in this effort by the 
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Hatch.
  Two years ago, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, 
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-517), and 
before that in 1998, P.L. 105-181, which we were privileged to 
introduce. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful 
Department of Justice grant program has provided law enforcement 
officers in 16,000 jurisdictions with nearly 500,000 vests.
  There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our 
streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against 
violent criminals. Each year, on average, more than 60 law enforcement 
officers are killed by gunfire in the line of duty. The felonious use 
of guns and the increased use of larger caliber handguns and assault 
rifles has created an even greater risk for law enforcement officers 
and an increasing need for higher threat level, better quality, and 
more comfortable vests that can be worn in a variety of circumstances. 
The use of body armor to provide protection against the use of deadly 
force and assaults as well as its demonstrated value in protecting 
officers involved in vehicle accidents, provides compelling reasons for 
officers to be equipped with and to wear body armor.

  In 2002, 149 Federal, State and local law enforcement officers gave 
their lives in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 
165 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 230 
officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction 
including the availability of better equipment and the increased use of 
bullet-resistant vests.
  As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks which law 
enforcement officers face every day on the front lines, protecting our 
communities. Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who serve this 
nation as our guardians of law and order do so at a great personal 
risk. Every year, about 1 in 15 officers is assaulted, 1 in 46 officers 
is injured, and 1 in 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty 
somewhere in America every other day. There are few communities in this 
country that have not been impacted by the words ``officer down.''
  The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most 
important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can 
have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives 
of more than 2,700 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In 
fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers 
who do not wear bulletproof vests are 14 times more likely to be killed 
by a firearm than those officers who do wear vests. Simply put, 
bulletproof vests save lives.
  Unfortunately, many police departments do not have the resources to 
purchase vests on their own, especially in America's smaller 
communities. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 would 
continue the partnership with State and local law enforcement agencies 
to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest 
gets one. It would do so by continuing to authorize up to $50 million 
per year for the grant program within the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In addition, the program provides 50-50 matching grants to State and 
local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes with under 100,000 
residents to assist in purchasing bulletproof vests and body armor.
  While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a 
career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure 
that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a 
vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an 
officer can have and often means the difference between life and death. 
The United States Senate can help, and I urge our colleagues to support 
prompt passage 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. 764

       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 ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
     Grant Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968

[[Page S4705]]

     (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(23)) is amended by striking ``2004'' and 
     inserting ``2007''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Miller):
  S. 766. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
establish a national cemetery for veterans in the Jacksonville, 
Florida, metropolitan area; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is a central element of our 
national character to pay solemn tribute to the service of those who 
have worn the uniform of our Armed Forces and placed themselves in 
harm's way to defend our freedom and way of life. We raise monuments to 
the deeds of our great wartime leaders as well as the countless, often 
nameless heroes of those battles fought throughout our history. We also 
set aside special days to remember the sacrifice of generations of 
Americans who have stepped forward in America's defense.
  This Nation also sets aside special places, hallowed ground, where we 
lay to rest those who have served us in our hour of greatest need. Our 
National Cemetery system is not only hallowed ground, National 
Cemeteries are monuments to military service, the places where we go on 
those special days to pay tribute to the sacrifice of so many in our 
history. National Cemeteries remind us of where we have been as a 
Nation, and inspires future generations to uphold the legacy of our 
veterans' devotion and sacrifice.
  Today I offer legislation to establish a National Cemetery near 
Jacksonville, Florida to meet the needs of thousands of veterans who 
have chosen to live out their lives in Northeast Florida and Southeast 
Georgia. Florida's veteran population is the second largest in the 
Nation. Right now in Northern Florida and Southern Georgia, there are 
nearly half-a-million veterans. Florida has the Nation's oldest veteran 
population and one of the largest remaining populations of World War II 
veterans. We are all aware that this greatest of generations is passing 
away at higher and higher rates.
  Unfortunately for these hundreds of thousands of veterans in Florida 
and Georgia, the nearest National Cemetery is located in Bushnell, FL, 
which is a three-hour drive from Jacksonville. The National Cemetery in 
St. Augustine is full and closed. The nearest National Cemetery in 
Georgia is in Marietta just north of Atlanta.
  Our veterans have defended our country in her days of peril, and 
certainly deserve to rest in honored respect in a National Cemetery. To 
meet our obligations to the veterans of Northeast Florida and Southeast 
Georgia, we must act now, in order to have this facility established by 
2006 when our World War II veterans' deaths are expected to reach their 
peak.
  I am proud to sponsor this important bill, and look forward to the 
support of my colleagues as we provide for our veterans who have given 
so much for our country.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 766

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

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38, United 
     States Code, a national cemetery in the Jacksonville, 
     Florida, metropolitan area to serve the needs of veterans and 
     their families.
       (b) Consultation in Selection of Site.--Before selecting 
     the site for the national cemetery established under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) appropriate officials of the State of Florida and local 
     officials of the Jacksonville metropolitan area; and
       (2) appropriate officials of the United States, including 
     the Administrator of General Services, with respect to land 
     belonging to the United States in that area that would be 
     suitable to establish the national cemetery under subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the establishment of the national cemetery under 
     subsection (a). The report shall set forth a schedule for 
     such establishment of the national cemetery and an estimate 
     of the costs associated with such establishment of the 
     national cemetery.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Miller, 
        and Mr. Warner):
  S. 767. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the increase in the tax on social security benefits; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my friend and 
colleague Senator Bayh of Indian, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will repeal a ten year old tax increase on our senior citizens. We 
are joined by Sens. Chambliss, Miller, and Warner. This tax increase 
was passed in 1993 and has been an onerous and unjust tax on the Social 
Security benefits of America's seniors.
  I am pleased to have the support of the following organizations for 
this important legislation: United Seniors Association, National 
Taxpayers Union, The Seniors Coalition, Americans for Tax Reform, The 
60 Plus Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                   United Seniors Association,

                                      Fairfax, VA, March 13, 2003.
     Hon. Evan Bayh,
     Senate Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Senate Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of United Seniors Association's 
     1.5 million-plus nationwide grassroots network, we 
     enthusiastically support your legislation, the Social 
     Security Tax Equity Act of 2003.
       For over a decade, United Seniors Association has led the 
     charge to eliminate all taxes on Social Security benefits. 
     Your legislation will substantially lift financial burdens 
     from millions of Seniors and I commend you for your 
     leadership.
       Before 1984, no one paid federal income taxes on their 
     Social Security benefits. President Clinton signed the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which raised to 85 
     percent the amount of Social Security benefits subject to 
     income taxes. Each year since 1993, more and more Seniors 
     have been hit by this Seniors-only tax. Proponents of the tax 
     hike maintained that it would only affect ``rich Seniors.'' 
     However, that was not true. The tax has hit Seniors with 
     moderate incomes most heavily.
       The taxation of benefits is confusing, unfair, and makes 
     middle class Seniors pay higher marginal tax rates than many 
     millionaires. Every year, more Seniors feel the tax pinch 
     because the income thresholds are not indexed for inflation. 
     Over 9 million Seniors now pay this unfair tax. This tax is 
     not only bad policy, but it is a disincentive for continuing 
     a productive work-life after age 65.
       Again, we applaud both of you for your efforts. United 
     Seniors Association stands ready to help you pass this 
     important piece of legislation not only for Seniors, but for 
     their children, and their grandchildren.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles W. Jarvis,
     Chairman and Chief Executive.
                                  ____



                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 12, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Evan Bayh,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Bayh: On behalf of our 335,000 
     members, the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) strongly 
     supports, in addition to the urgently needed tax relief 
     contained in the President's plan (S. 2 by Senators Nickles 
     and Miller), your proposed legislation to repeal the 1993 
     imposed upon Social Security recipients. While NTU would 
     prefer the repeal of all taxes on Social Security benefits, 
     we are pleased to endorse your proposal as a good first step.
       As you know, prior to 1993, seniors paid taxes on half of 
     their Social Security benefits if their combined income 
     exceeded certain levels. In 1993 the taxable portion of 
     Social Security benefits was increased to 85% for individuals 
     with income exceeding $34,000 and couples with incomes 
     exceeding $44,000. This punishing level of taxation applies 
     to almost a fourth of all Social Security recipients. It 
     penalizes seniors who choose to save their money or keep 
     working. For many seniors, just as in the case of dividend 
     income, this taxation is clearly double taxation.
       Again, in addition to the critical need for the Senate to 
     pass the ``Jobs and Growth Act of 2003,'' we would urge your 
     Senate colleagues to pass your repeal of the 1993 tax on 
     Social Security benefits as an important first step on the 
     road to total repeal of all such taxes on Social Security 
     income for retirees.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Al Cors, Jr.,
                               Vice President, Government Affairs.

[[Page S4706]]

     
                                  ____
                                        The Seniors Coalition,

                                  Springfield, VA, March 18, 2002.
     Hon. Gordon H. Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Evan Bayh
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith & Bayh: On behalf of our four million 
     senior members and supporters nationwide, I commend you for 
     introducing the Social Security benefits that unfairly 
     targets seniors and results in a disincentive for them to 
     work, invest and save. We likewise applaud you for your 
     commitment to a more equitable and nondiscriminatory tax 
     system for older Americans.
       As you know, Congress passed a law in 1983 that required 
     Social security beneficiaries to pay taxes on 50 percent of 
     their benefits when they exceeded certain income levels. In 
     1993, Congress increased the threshold to 85 percent of 
     Social Security benefits for single retirees with income 
     above $34,000 and for couples with income over $44,000. Since 
     Social Security taxes are only 50 percent deductible (the 
     employer's share), and seniors have already paid taxes on 
     their payroll tax contribution, they are currently taxed 
     twice when they pay taxes on more than 50 percent of 
     benefits.
       Seniors have spent a lifetime saving and investing in 
     America in order to enjoy financial independence and security 
     in retirement and to accrue assets for their children. Sadly, 
     however, the double tax on Social Security punishes years 
     spent exercising financial discipline. Worse yet, this tax 
     ultimately forces seniors to limit their non-Social Security 
     income or face the financial burdens it imposes at certain 
     levels of earned and investment income.
       While this double tax on Social Security clearly targets 
     seniors, our entire society bears an incalculable economic 
     penalty as an experienced and knowledgeable senior workforce 
     opts to sit on the sidelines rather than work and invest for 
     substandard returns. In the midst of this current economic 
     downturn, America would greatly benefit from the faithful 
     investment practices and the productive work habits of its 
     senior citizens.
       Your bill would put an end to the unfair and discriminatory 
     practice of double taxation of seniors' Social Security 
     benefits and encourage senior Americans to continue 
     contributing to the nation's growth. We therefore strongly 
     support the ``Social Security Tax Equity Act of 2003'' and 
     are ready to assist you in securing its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary M. Martin,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                     Americans for Tax Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Russell Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Smith: On behalf of Americans for Tax 
     Reform (ATR), I want to thank you for introducing the Social 
     Security Tax Equity Act of 2003. ATR pledges full support for 
     this critically important legislation.
       As you know, the 1993 Clinton tax increase levied on Social 
     Security was on attack on senior citizens and workers. Worker 
     payroll contributions finance Social Security benefits. Yet 
     the benefits that senior citizens receive are again taxed--a 
     second time--if these citizens have incomes above a threshold 
     amount. This is an unjust form of double taxation and it must 
     be eliminated.
       Before the 1993 tax increase, single retirees with incomes 
     above $25,000 and $32,000 for couples paid taxes on half of 
     Social Security benefits. The 1993 increase, however, raised 
     the threshold income for single retirees to $34,000 and 
     $44,000 for couples. The increase also imposed levies on 85 
     percent of Social Security benefits--a 35 percent increase on 
     benefits. Roughly a quarter of Social Security recipients now 
     pay higher taxes.
       ATR is encouraged by your bold leadership to roll back this 
     unfair form of double taxation. Repealing the 1993 tax 
     increase will yield economic benefits that will grow our 
     economy and reward productive behavior. We applaud your 
     effort to fight for working men and women and especially for 
     our elderly citizens.
           Sincerely,
     Grover Norquist.
                                  ____



                                      The 60 Plus Association,

                                    Arlington, VA, March 25, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon H. Smith,
     Hon. Evan Bayh,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith and Bayh: On behalf of the 60 Plus 
     Association, I want you both to know you have our complete 
     support for legislation you soon plan to introduce, the 
     Social Security Tax Equity Act of 2003.
       Increased taxes for Social Security benefits are a crystal 
     clear example of government greed at the expense of America's 
     seniors. Social Security benefits are already financed by 
     worker payroll tax contributions--but to tax senior citizens 
     a second time on their Social Security benefits should they 
     elect to continue working only burdens retired Americans 
     unfairly.
       The 60 Plus Association stands foursquare with any group or 
     individual dedicated to maintaining and strengthening Social 
     Security. This vital program ought not be the catalyst for 
     exacting tax revenues on hard-earned retirement benefits.
       Working allows seniors to earn income that in turn boosts 
     economic growth. Tax penalties on these additional retirement 
     incomes discourage seniors from continuing to lead active, 
     productive lives according to their ability and choosing. 
     That's wrong and needs to be remedied.
       Senior, the 60 Plus Association is with you in eliminating 
     this double taxation of Social Security benefits.
           Kind regards,
                                                  James L. Martin,
                                                        President.

  Senior citizens pay Federal taxes on a portion of their Social 
Security benefits if they receive additional income from savings or 
from work. As ludicrous as it seems, our seniors who have worked hard 
their lives, and planned and saved for their retirement are being taxed 
a second time, when they need their income the most.
  One of the most unfair tax increases occurred in the 1993 tax bill. 
Before 1993, seniors paid taxes on half their Social Security benefits 
if their combined income--which includes adjusted gross income and one-
half of their Social Security benefits--exceeded $25,000 for 
individuals or $32,000 for couples. In 1993 this tax was increased--
individuals with incomes above $34,000 and couples with income above 
$44,000 now had a portion of their Social Security benefits taxes at 85 
percent.
  I strongly believe that this increase in the taxable portion of 
Social Security benefits violated the contract seniors had with the 
United States government. This tax increase was unfair and it provided 
a disincentive to our seniors who chose to save or chose to work. This 
single provision increased taxes for almost one-quarter of Social 
Security recipients.
  Seniors have spent a lifetime saving and investing in America in 
order to enjoy financial independence and security in retirement and to 
accrue assets for their children. Sadly, the double tax on Social 
Security punishes years spent exercising financial discipline. Worse 
yet, this tax ultimately forces seniors to limit their non-Social 
Security income or face the financial burden it imposes at certain 
levels of earned income.
  This tax hits middle income seniors, kicking in as soon as that 
senior crosses the $34,000 mark.
  While this double tax clearly targets seniors, our entire society 
carries the economic burden as an experienced and knowledgeable senior 
workforce chooses to sit on the sidelines rather than work and invest 
for substandard returns. In the middle of the current economic 
downturn, America would greatly benefit from the faithful investment 
practices and the productive work habits of its senior citizens.
  I have been a cosponsor of various bills in the past few Congresses 
to repeal this unfair tax. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, 
I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Social Security Tax 
Equity Act of 2003.
  I believe that we must do everything possible to turn back this 10 
year old tax increase and return some small measure of equity and fair 
play to those senior citizens affected by that tax. I urge you all to 
join me and my fellow senators by becoming cosponsors of this 
legislation, and roll back this unfair form of double taxation on our 
senior citizens and encourage them to continue contributing to the 
Nation's growth. Those who have helped build this great country through 
their lifetimes deserve our support now.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Social Security Tax 
Equity Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

                                 S. 767

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) Repeal of Increase in Tax on Social Security 
     Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 86(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to social security 
     and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new flush sentence:
     ``This paragraph shall not apply to any taxable year 
     beginning after December 31, 2002.''
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
       (b) Revenue Offset.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer, for each fiscal year, from the general fund in the 
     Treasury to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 
     established under section 1817 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395i) an amount equal to the decrease in revenues to 
     the Treasury for such fiscal year by reason of the amendment 
     made by this section.

[[Page S4707]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        McConnell, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 769. A bill to permit reviews of criminal records of applicants 
for private security officer employment; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Alexander, 
Lieberman, McConnell and Schumer in introducing the Private Security 
Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2003, a bill that would provide 
private security firms an opportunity to have national criminal history 
information searches undertaken to determine whether or not employees 
or applicants for employment pose a threat to the facilities and 
persons they are supposed to protect. There would be no expense to the 
government and the searches would require the consent of the employee 
or applicant for employment.
  Large numbers of critical non-governmental facilities from power 
plants to schools to hospitals are protected by private security firms 
and their civilian security officers. Keeping these facilities secure 
from terrorism or other forms of violent attack is critical to our 
national security. Yet currently most private security employers cannot 
request timely national criminal background check information on the 
very people they need to hire to protect these key facilities. This 
legislation seeks to correct that. This bill would authorize private 
security firms to request Federal background checks on current or 
prospective employees through the appropriate state agencies, thereby 
permitting relevant criminal history information to be considered in 
the licensing and employment of private security officers.
  The Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI 
maintains complete criminal history records for both Federal and State 
crimes on individuals with criminal records in the United States. 
Searches are most effectively conducted using fingerprints to ensure 
efficiency and accuracy. We have already passed legislation 
specifically permitting other industries--for instance, the banking, 
nursing home, and child care industries--to check their prospective 
employees against the FBI's comprehensive records. Many of the reasons 
that supported passage of those laws, particularly the desire to ensure 
that those who provide certain important services have a background 
commensurate with their responsibilities, support passage of this bill 
as well.
  This legislation will enhance our Nation's security. As an adjunct to 
our Nation's law enforcement officers, private security guards are 
responsible for the protection of numerous critical components of our 
Nation's infrastructure, including power generation facilities, 
hazardous materials manufacturing facilities, water supply and delivery 
facilities, oil and gas refineries, and food processing plants. The 
approximately 13,000 private security companies in the United States 
employ about 1.5 million persons nationwide. Given the critical nature 
of the facilities private security officers are hired to protect, it is 
imperative that we provide sufficient access to information that might 
disclose who is unsuitable for protecting these resources.
  Currently we do not. Relying upon a Federal bill passed in the early 
1970's, 37 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation 
authorizing State agencies to request both State and Federal criminal 
history record searches. Despite this authorization, security firms 
report that searches of both State and Federal databases for private 
security officers are the exception rather than the rule. That is 
because only 20 States plus the District of Columbia regularly access 
the Federal database for private security officers, and only two--
California and Illinois--do so in a way that ensures a timely response. 
In many jurisdictions with authorizing statutes, reviews of the Federal 
database are conducted sporadically, if at all. Indeed, in 
approximately 17 of the 37 States with authorizing statutes, typically 
only State databases are searched for private security officers. An 
additional 13 States have not even passed legislation authorizing any 
form of Federal criminal background check. What that means is that in 
approximately 30 States neither the State agencies nor the private 
security employers typically have any access to any Federal criminal 
database information. In these 30 States, an employment applicant in 
one State could have a serious criminal conviction in another State and 
still be permitted to perform sensitive security work. The state 
reviewing the applicant would have no idea a conviction in another 
State existed without access to the Federal database.
  Further, even in those few States that actually conduct Federal 
records searches, the Federal searches conducted on new employees often 
take 90 to 120 days, if not longer. While checks are pending, security 
guards frequently are provided temporary licenses. This 90 to 120 day 
period is more than enough time for a guard with a temporary license to 
perpetrate dangerous acts. In light of our urgent need to strengthen 
the security of our homeland, this lack of timely access to criminal 
history information is unacceptable. An article that appeared earlier 
this year in USA Today entitled ``Private Security Guards Are 
Homeland's Weak Link'' got it right when it said, ``more often than 
not, private security guards who protect millions of lives and billions 
of dollars in real estate offer a false sense of security.'' We need to 
act in order to make it easier for States and employers to gain timely 
access to this crucial criminal history information.
  This bill strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of 
all parties involved.
  First, the bill permits private security employers to request a 
prompt search of the FBI criminal history database for prospective or 
existing employees. Requests must be made by the employers through 
their state's identification bureau or similar state agency designated 
by the Attorney General. Employers will not be granted direct access to 
the FBI records. Instead, states will serve as intermediaries between 
employers and the FBI to: 1. ensure that employment suitability 
determinations are made pursuant to applicable State law; 2. prevent 
disclosure of the raw FBI criminal history information to the employers 
and the public; and 3. minimize the FBI's administrative burden of 
having to respond to background check requests from countless different 
sources. The program will not cost the Federal Government anything. The 
legislation allows the FBI, and states if they so choose, to charge 
reasonable fees to security firms to recover their costs of carrying 
out this act.
  Second, the bill protects employee and prospective employee privacy. 
Before an FBI background check can be conducted, the employee or 
applicant for employment must grant an employer written consent to 
request the FBI database search. In addition, the criminal history 
reports received by the States will not be disseminated to employers. 
Instead, in States that have standards regulating private security 
guard employment, designated State agencies will simply be required to 
use the information provided by the FBI in applying their State 
standards. For those States that have no standards, the States will be 
instructed to inform requesting employers whether or not employees or 
applicants have been convicted of either: 1. a felony; 2. a violent 
misdemeanor within the past ten years; or 3. a crime of dishonesty 
within the past ten years. Thus, in these situations, only the fact 
that a particular conviction exists or not will be provided by States 
to employers, and the privacy of the records themselves will be 
maintained. All information provided to employers pursuant to this act 
must be provided to the employees or prospective employees. 
Furthermore, the bill establishes strong criminal penalties for those 
who might falsely certify they are authorized security firms or 
otherwise use information obtained pursuant to this act beyond the 
act's intended purposes.
  Third, the bill protects States' interests. The bill does not impose 
an unfunded mandate on the states. It reserves the right of States to 
charge reasonable fees to employers for their costs in administering 
this act. Moreover, if a State wishes to opt out of this statutory 
regime, it may do so at any time.
  This legislation is long overdue. It strikes the right balance 
between the need for States and employers to gain access to this 
critical information and the privacy rights of current and prospective 
security guards. We have

[[Page S4708]]

worked with the FBI to expedite the administrative process, and it will 
cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no undue burden being 
placed on our States. Most importantly, passage of this act will plug a 
hole in our homeland defense. I urge my colleagues to support 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. 769

       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 ``Private Security Officer 
     Employment Authorization Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) employment of private security officers in the United 
     States is growing rapidly;
       (2) private security officers function as an adjunct to, 
     but not a replacement for, public law enforcement by helping 
     to reduce and prevent crime;
       (3) such private security officers protect individuals, 
     property, and proprietary information, and provide protection 
     to such diverse operations as banks, hospitals, research and 
     development centers, manufacturing facilities, defense and 
     aerospace contractors, high technology businesses, nuclear 
     power plants, chemical companies, oil and gas refineries, 
     airports, communication facilities and operations, office 
     complexes, schools, residential properties, apartment 
     complexes, gated communities, and others;
       (4) sworn law enforcement officers provide significant 
     services to the citizens of the United States in its public 
     areas, and are supplemented by private security officers;
       (5) the threat of additional terrorist attacks requires 
     cooperation between public and private sectors and demands 
     professional, reliable, and responsible security officers for 
     the protection of people, facilities, and institutions;
       (6) the trend in the Nation toward growth in such security 
     services has accelerated rapidly;
       (7) such growth makes available more public sector law 
     enforcement officers to combat serious and violent crimes, 
     including terrorism;
       (8) the American public deserves the employment of 
     qualified, well-trained private security personnel as an 
     adjunct to sworn law enforcement officers; and
       (9) private security officers and applicants for private 
     security officer positions should be thoroughly screened and 
     trained.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Employee.--The term ``employee'' includes both a 
     current employee and an applicant for employment as a private 
     security officer.
       (2) Authorized employer.--The term ``authorized employer'' 
     means any person that--
       (A) employs private security officers; and
       (B) is authorized by regulations promulgated by the 
     Attorney General to request a criminal history record 
     information search of an employee through a State 
     identification bureau pursuant to this section.
       (3) Private security officer.-- The term ``private security 
     officer''--
       (A) means an individual other than an employee of a 
     Federal, State, or local government, whose primary duty is to 
     perform security services, full- or part-time, for 
     consideration, whether armed or unarmed and in uniform or 
     plain clothes; but
       (B) does not include--
       (i) employees whose duties are primarily internal audit or 
     credit functions;
       (ii) employees of electronic security system companies 
     acting as technicians or monitors; or
       (iii) employees whose duties primarily involve the secure 
     movement of prisoners.
       (4) Security services.--The term ``security services'' 
     means acts to protect people or property as defined by 
     regulations promulgated by the Attorney General.
       (5) State identification bureau.--The term ``State 
     identification bureau'' means the State entity designated by 
     the Attorney General for the submission and receipt of 
     criminal history record information.

     SEC. 4. CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION SEARCH.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Submission of fingerprints.--An authorized employer may 
     submit to the State identification bureau of a participating 
     State, fingerprints or other means of positive 
     identification, as determined by the Attorney General, of an 
     employee of such employer for purposes of a criminal history 
     record information search pursuant to this Act.
       (2) Employee rights.--
       (A) Permission.--An authorized employer shall obtain 
     written consent from an employee to submit to the State 
     identification bureau of a participating State the request to 
     search the criminal history record information of the 
     employee under this Act.
       (B) Access.--An authorized employer shall provide to the 
     employee confidential access to any information relating to 
     the employee received by the authorized employer pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (3) Providing information to the state identification 
     bureau.--Upon receipt of a request for a criminal history 
     record information search from an authorized employer 
     pursuant to this Act, submitted through the State 
     identification bureau of a participating State, the Attorney 
     General shall--
       (A) search the appropriate records of the Criminal Justice 
     Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation; and
       (B) promptly provide any resulting identification and 
     criminal history record information to the submitting State 
     identification bureau requesting the information.
       (4) Use of information.--
       (A) In general.--Upon receipt of the criminal history 
     record information from the Attorney General by the State 
     identification bureau, the information shall be used only as 
     provided in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Terms.--In the case of--
       (i) a participating State that has no State standards for 
     qualification to be a private security officer, the State 
     shall notify an authorized employer as to the fact of whether 
     an employee has been convicted of a felony, an offense 
     involving dishonesty or a false statement if the conviction 
     occurred during the previous 10 years, or an offense 
     involving the use or attempted use of physical force against 
     the person of another if the conviction occurred during the 
     previous 10 years; or
       (ii) a participating State that has State standards for 
     qualification to be a private security officer, the State 
     shall use the information received pursuant to this Act in 
     applying the State standards and shall only notify the 
     employer of the results of the application of the State 
     standards.
       (5) Frequency of requests.--An authorized employer may 
     request a criminal history record information search for an 
     employee only once every 12 months of continuous employment 
     by that employee unless the authorized employer has good 
     cause to submit additional requests.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall issue such 
     final or interim final regulations as may be necessary to 
     carry out this Act, including--
       (1) measures relating to the security, confidentiality, 
     accuracy, use, submission, dissemination, destruction of 
     information and audits, and recordkeeping;
       (2) standards for qualification as an authorized employer; 
     and
       (3) the imposition of reasonable fees necessary for 
     conducting the background checks.
       (c) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever falsely certifies that he 
     meets the applicable standards for an authorized employer or 
     who knowingly and intentionally uses any information obtained 
     pursuant to this Act other than for the purpose of 
     determining the suitability of an individual for employment 
     as a private security officer shall be fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, 
     or both.
       (d) User Fees.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation may--
       (A) collect fees pursuant to regulations promulgated under 
     subsection (b) to process background checks provided for by 
     this Act; and
       (B) establish such fees at a level to include an additional 
     amount to defray expenses for the automation of fingerprint 
     identification and criminal justice information services and 
     associated costs.
       (2) Limitations.--Any fee collected under this subsection--
       (A) shall be credited as offsetting collections to finance 
     the activities and services for which the fee is imposed;
       (B) shall be available for expenditure only to pay the 
     costs of such activities and services; and
       (C) shall remain available until expended.
       (3) State costs.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
     restricting the right of a State to assess a reasonable fee 
     on an authorized employer for the costs to the State of 
     administering this Act.
       (e) State Opt Out.--A State may decline to participate in 
     the background check system authorized by this Act by 
     enacting a law or issuing an order by the Governor (if 
     consistent with State law) providing that the State is 
     declining to participate pursuant to this subsection.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 770. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to ensure fair treatment and due process protections under the 
temporary assistance to needy families program, to facilitate enhanced 
data collection and reporting requirements under that program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, later this year, the Senate will 
consider the first reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Opportunity and 
Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act. This law ended the Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children program and created our current 
federal welfare program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 
TANF, program.
  I supported the legislation that created TANF because I believed that 
the

[[Page S4709]]

welfare system was failing recipients and their families and that we 
needed to do better. Now, seven years later, the welfare rolls are 
again on the rise and it is clear that improvements need to be made to 
the TANF program in order to achieve the goal of breaking the cycle of 
poverty and moving recipients into well-paying, sustainable jobs.
  As we all know, each State's welfare program is different, and the 
implementation of these programs often varies from provider to provider 
and from county to county. While we encouraged state-level innovation 
with the 1996 law and should continue to encourage it with our 
reauthorization legislation, we should also ensure that all State plans 
conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections 
for all applicants and clients.
  I am deeply concerned that a client who applies for or receives 
benefits in one part of Wisconsin may not be getting the same treatment 
as another applicant or client in a different part of my State.
  The bill that I introduce today, the Fair Treatment and Due Process 
Protection Act, would improve Federal fair treatment and due process 
protections for applicants to and clients of State TANF programs by 
addressing gaps in current law in three areas: access to translation 
services and English as a Second Language education programs, sanction 
notification and due process protections, and data collection and 
analysis.
  I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. 
Landrieu.
  In order for low-income parents whose primary language is not English 
to understand their rights with respect to availability of benefits, to 
comply with Federal and State TANF program rules, and to move from 
welfare to work, we should ensure that translation services and English 
as a Second Language classes are available.
  My bill would require states to provide interpretation and 
translation services to low-income parents who do not speak English, 
and provides that the standards currently used in the food stamp 
program would be used to determine when the requirement to provide such 
services would be triggered for TANF-funded programs.
  States would also be required to advise adults who lack English 
proficiency of available programs in the community to help them learn 
English, and to allow individuals who elect to enroll in such programs 
to participate in them. Individuals who participate in such activities 
on a satisfactory basis would be considered to be engaged in work 
activities and these activities would be counted towards the work 
participation rates.
  If we are not only to reduce the welfare rolls but to reduce poverty 
and to ensure that low-income parents find sustainable jobs, we must 
ensure that these parents have access to education and training, 
including ESL classes, and that this training counts toward the work 
requirement. I support efforts to expand the number of activities that 
TANF clients are permitted to count as work, and my bill would add ESL 
classes to that list.
  In addition, I am concerned about reports of unfair sanctioning and 
case closures across the country. We should make every effort to 
minimize discrimination in the application of sanctions and the 
termination of benefits. My bill would require that, prior to imposing 
a sanction, States inform individuals of the reasons for the sanction 
and what individuals may do to come into compliance with program rules 
to avoid the sanction. It also would stipulate that sanctions may not 
continue after individuals have come into compliance with program 
rules, and that individuals be informed of all other services and 
benefits for which they may be eligible during the period of the 
sanction, and of their rights under applicable State and Federal laws.
  Finally, this bill would require States to perform enhanced data 
collection and analysis so that we can get a better picture of the 
people who apply for and receive TANF benefits and those who leave the 
welfare rolls.
  I share the concern that has been expressed by a number of my 
constituents regarding the lack of comprehensive, uniform data about 
State welfare programs, including information on those who apply for 
benefits and those who have left the welfare rolls. My bill would 
require States to collect and manage data in a uniform way; to 
disaggregate the data based on a larger number of subgroups, including 
race, ethnicity/national origin, gender, primary language, and 
educational level of recipient; to include information on work 
participation and about applicants who are diverted to other programs; 
and to track clients whose cases are closed.
  In addition, the federal Department of Health and Human Services 
would be required to include a comprehensive analysis broken down by 
these same data groups in its annual report on the TANF program. The 
Department would also be required to perform a longitudinal study of 
program outcomes that includes data on applicants for assistance, 
families that receive assistance, and families that leave assistance 
during the period of the study. The Secretary of Health and Human 
Services would be required to protect the privacy of individuals and 
families applying for or receiving assistance under state TANF programs 
when data on such individuals and families is publicly disclosed by the 
Secretary.
  These enhanced requirements are not meant to impose an additional 
burden on the states. Rather, they are intended to measure the success 
of the program in a more comprehensive and transparent manner.
  This legislation is supported by a broad array of more than 40 
organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the 
NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the American Association of University Women, the 
American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the 
Center for Community Change, Hmong National Development, Inc., the 
National Association of Social Workers, the National Campaign for Jobs 
and Income Support, the National Council of Churches, the National 
Council of La Raza, the National Organization for Women, the National 
Partnership for Women and Families, the National Urban League, Nine to 
Five, and the Welfare Law Center.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 770

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fair 
     Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; references.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO TRANSLATION SERVICES AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. Provision of interpretation and translation services.
Sec. 102. Assisting families with limited English proficiency.

            TITLE II--SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS

Sec. 201. Sanctions and due process protections.

         TITLE III--DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 301. Data collection and reporting requirements.
Sec. 302. Enhancement of understanding of the reasons individuals leave 
              State TANF programs.
Sec. 303. Longitudinal studies of TANF applicants and recipients.
Sec. 304. Protection of individual privacy.

                        TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 401. Effective date.
       (c) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the amendment or repeal shall be considered to be 
     made to a section or other provision of the Social Security 
     Act.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO TRANSLATION SERVICES AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 101. PROVISION OF INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Provision of interpretation and translation 
     services.--A State to which a grant is made under section 
     403(a) for a fiscal year shall, with respect to the State 
     program funded under this part and all programs funded with 
     qualified State expenditures (as

[[Page S4710]]

     defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)), provide appropriate 
     interpretation and translation services to individuals who 
     lack English proficiency if the number or percentage of 
     persons lacking English proficiency meets the standards 
     established under section 272.4(b) of title 7 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this paragraph).''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) Penalty for failure to provide interpretation and 
     translation services.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year 
     has violated section 408(a)(12) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.
       ``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary 
     shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

     SEC. 102. ASSISTING FAMILIES WITH LIMITED ENGLISH 
                   PROFICIENCY.

       (a) In General.--Section 407(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Individuals with limited english proficiency.--In the 
     case of an adult recipient who lacks English language 
     proficiency, as defined by the State, the State shall--
       ``(i) advise the adult recipient of available programs or 
     activities in the community to address the recipient's 
     education needs;
       ``(ii) if the adult recipient elects to participate in such 
     a program or activity, allow the recipient to participate in 
     such a program or activity; and
       ``(iii) consider an adult recipient who participates in 
     such a program or activity on a satisfactory basis as being 
     engaged in work for purposes of determining monthly 
     participation rates under this section, except that the 
     State--

       ``(I) may elect to require additional hours of 
     participation or activity if necessary to ensure that the 
     recipient is participating in work-related activities for a 
     sufficient number of hours to count as being engaged in work 
     under this section; and
       ``(II) shall attempt to ensure that any additional hours of 
     participation or activity do not unreasonably interfere with 
     the education activity of the recipient.''.

       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended 
     by section 101(b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(16) Penalty for failure to provide interpretation and 
     translation services.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year 
     has violated section 407(c)(2)(E) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.
       ``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary 
     shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

            TITLE II--SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 201. SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as 
     amended by section 101(a), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(13) Sanction procedures.--
       ``(A) Pre-sanction review process.--Prior to the imposition 
     of a sanction against an individual or family receiving 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part or 
     under a program funded with qualified State expenditures (as 
     defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) for failure to comply 
     with program requirements, the State shall take the following 
     steps:
       ``(i) Provide or send notice to the individual or family, 
     and, if the recipient's native language is not English, 
     through a culturally competent translation, of the following 
     information:

       ``(I) The specific reason for the proposed sanction.
       ``(II) The amount of the proposed sanction.
       ``(III) The length of time during which the proposed 
     sanction would be in effect.
       ``(IV) The steps required to come into compliance or to 
     show good cause for noncompliance.
       ``(V) That the agency will provide assistance to the 
     individual in determining if good cause for noncompliance 
     exists, or in coming into compliance with program 
     requirements.
       ``(VI) That the individual may appeal the determination to 
     impose a sanction, and the steps that the individual must 
     take to pursue an appeal.

       ``(ii)(I) Ensure that, subject to clause (iii)--

       ``(aa) an individual other than the individual who 
     determined that a sanction be imposed shall review the 
     determination and have the authority to take the actions 
     described in subclause (II); and
       ``(bb) the individual or family against whom the sanction 
     is to be imposed shall be afforded the opportunity to meet 
     with the individual who, as provided for in item (aa), is 
     reviewing the determination with respect to the sanction.

       ``(II) An individual to which this subclause applies may--

       ``(aa) modify the determination to impose a sanction;
       ``(bb) determine that there was good cause for the 
     individual or family's failure to comply;
       ``(cc) recommend modifications to the individual's 
     individual responsibility or employment plan; and
       ``(dd) make such other determinations and take such other 
     actions as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

       ``(iii) The review required under clause (ii) shall include 
     consideration of the following:

       ``(I) To the extent applicable, whether barriers to 
     compliance exist, such as a physical or mental impairment, 
     including mental illness, substance abuse, mental 
     retardation, a learning disability, domestic or sexual 
     violence, limited proficiency in English, limited literacy, 
     homelessness, or the need to care for a child with a 
     disability or health condition, that contributed to the 
     noncompliance of the person.
       ``(II) Whether the individual or family's failure to comply 
     resulted from failure to receive or have access to services 
     previously identified as necessary in an individual 
     responsibility or employment plan.
       ``(III) Whether changes to the individual responsibility or 
     employment plan should be made in order for the individual to 
     comply with program requirements.
       ``(IV) Whether the individual or family has good cause for 
     any noncompliance.
       ``(V) Whether the State's sanction policies have been 
     applied properly.

       ``(B) Sanction follow-up requirements.--If a State imposes 
     a sanction on a family or individual for failing to comply 
     with program requirements, the State shall--
       ``(i) provide or send notice to the individual or family, 
     in language calculated to be understood by the individual or 
     family, and, if the individual's or family's native language 
     is not English, through a culturally competent translation, 
     of the reason for the sanction and the steps the individual 
     or family must take to end the sanction;
       ``(ii) resume the individual's or family's full assistance, 
     services, or benefits provided under this program (provided 
     that the individual or family is otherwise eligible for such 
     assistance, services, or benefits) once the individual who 
     failed to meet program requirements that led to the sanction 
     complies with program requirements for a reasonable period of 
     time, as determined by the State and subject to State 
     discretion to reduce such period;
       ``(iii) if assistance, services, or benefits have not 
     resumed, as of the period that begins on the date that is 60 
     days after the date on which the sanction was imposed, and 
     end on the date that is 120 days after such date, provide 
     notice to the individual or family, in language calculated to 
     be understood by the individual or family, of the steps the 
     individual or family must take to end the sanction, and of 
     the availability of assistance to come into compliance or 
     demonstrate good cause for noncompliance with program 
     requirements.''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended 
     by section 102(b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(17) Penalty for failure to follow sanction procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year 
     has violated section 408(a)(13) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.
       ``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary 
     shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.
       (c) State Plan Requirement To Describe How States Will 
     Notify Applicants and Recipients of Their Rights Under the 
     Program and of Potential Benefits and Services Available 
     Under the Program.--Section 402(a)(1)(B)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended by inserting ``, and will 
     notify applicants and recipients of assistance under the 
     program of the rights of individuals under all laws 
     applicable to program activities and of all potential 
     benefits and services available under the program'' before 
     the period.
       (d) Requirement To Provide Notice to Applicants and 
     Recipients of Rights and of Potential Program Benefits and 
     Services, and To Train Program Personnel To Respect Such 
     Rights.--
       (1) In general.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as 
     amended by subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(14) Requirement to provide notice to applicants and 
     recipients of rights and of potential program benefits and 
     services, and to train program personnel to respect such 
     rights.--A State to which a grant is made under section 403 
     shall--
       ``(A) notify each applicant for, and each recipient of, 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part or 
     under a program funded with qualified State expenditures (as 
     defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) of the rights of 
     applicants and recipients under all laws applicable to the 
     activities of such program (including the right to claim good 
     cause exceptions to program requirements), and shall provide 
     the notice--
       ``(i) to a recipient when the recipient first receives 
     assistance, benefits, or services under the program;

[[Page S4711]]

       ``(ii) to all such recipients on a semiannual basis; and
       ``(iii) orally and in writing, in the native language of 
     the recipient and at not higher than a 6th grade level, and, 
     if the recipient's native language is not English, through a 
     culturally competent translation; and
       ``(B) train all program personnel on a regular basis 
     regarding how to carry out the program consistent with such 
     rights.''.
       (2) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended 
     by subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(18) Penalty for failure to provide notice to applicants 
     and recipients of rights and of potential program benefits 
     and services, and to train program personnel to respect such 
     rights.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year 
     has violated section 408(a)(14) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.
       ``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary 
     shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

         TITLE III--DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 301. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 411(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``(except for information relating to activities carried out 
     under section 403(a)(5))'' and inserting ``, and, in 
     complying with this requirement, shall ensure that such 
     information is reported in a manner that permits analysis of 
     the information by race, ethnicity or national origin, 
     primary language, gender, and educational level, including 
     analysis using a combination of these factors, and that all 
     data, including Federal, State, and local data (whether 
     collected by public or private local agencies or entities 
     that administer or operate the State program funded under 
     this part) is made public and easily accessible'';
       (B) by striking clause (v) and inserting the following:
       ``(v) The employment status, occupation (as defined by the 
     most current Federal Standard Occupational Classification 
     system, as of the date of the collection of the data), and 
     earnings of each employed adult in the family.'';
       (C) in clause (vii), by striking ``and educational level'' 
     and inserting ``, educational level, and primary language'';
       (D) in clause (viii), by striking ``and educational level'' 
     and inserting ``, educational level, and primary language''; 
     and
       (E) in clause (xi), in the matter preceding subclause (I), 
     by inserting ``, including, to the extent such information is 
     available, information on the specific type of job, or 
     education or training program'' before the semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A), the following:
       ``(B) Information regarding applicants.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each eligible State shall collect on a 
     monthly basis, and report to the Secretary on a quarterly 
     basis, disaggregated case record information on the number of 
     individuals who apply for but do not receive assistance under 
     the State program funded under this part, the reason such 
     assistance were not provided, and the overall percentage of 
     applications for assistance that are approved compared to 
     those that are disapproved with respect to such month.
       ``(ii) Requirement.--In complying with clause (i), each 
     eligible State shall ensure that the information required 
     under that clause is reported in a manner that permits 
     analysis of such information by race, ethnicity or national 
     origin, primary language, gender, and educational level, 
     including analysis using a combination of these factors.''.

     SEC. 302. ENHANCEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONS 
                   INDIVIDUALS LEAVE STATE TANF PROGRAMS.

       (a) Case Closure Reasons.--Section 411(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
     611(a)(1)), as amended by section 301, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by 
     such section 301) as subparagraph (D); and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) (as added by such 
     section 301) the following:
       ``(C) Development of comprehensive list of case closure 
     reasons.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, in 
     consultation with States and individuals or organizations 
     with expertise related to the provision of assistance under 
     the State program funded under this part, a comprehensive 
     list of reasons why individuals leave State programs funded 
     under this part. In developing such list, the Secretary shall 
     consider the full range of reasons for case closures, 
     including the following:

       ``(I) Lack of access to specific programs or services, such 
     as child care, transportation, or English as a second 
     language classes for individuals with limited English 
     proficiency.
       ``(II) The medical or health problems of a recipient.

       ``(III) The family responsibilities of a recipient, such as 
     caring for a family member with a disability.
       ``(IV) Changes in eligibility status.
       ``(V) Other administrative reasons.

       ``(ii) Other requirements.--The list required under clause 
     (i) shall be developed with the goal of substantially 
     reducing the number of case closures under the State programs 
     funded under this part for which a reason is not known.
       ``(iii) Public comment.--The Secretary shall promulgate for 
     public comment regulations that--

       ``(I) list the case closure reasons developed under clause 
     (i);
       ``(II) require States, not later than October 1, 2004, to 
     use such reasons in accordance with subparagraph (A)(xvi); 
     and
       ``(III) require States to report on efforts to improve 
     State tracking of reasons for case closures, including the 
     identification of additional reasons for case closures not 
     included on the list developed under clause (i).

       ``(iv) Review and modification.--The Secretary, through 
     consultation and analysis of quarterly State reports 
     submitted under this paragraph, shall review on an annual 
     basis whether the list of case closure reasons developed 
     under clause (i) requires modification and, to the extent the 
     Secretary determines that modification of the list is 
     necessary, shall publish proposed modifications for notice 
     and comment, prior to the modifications taking effect.''.
       (b) Inclusion in Quarterly State Reports.--Section 411 
     (a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (xvi)--
       (A) in subclause (IV), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subclause (V), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(VI) a reason specified in the list developed under 
     subparagraph (C), including any modifications of such 
     list.'';

       (2) by redesignating clause (xvii) as clause (xviii); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (xvi), the following:
       ``(xvii) The efforts the State is undertaking, and the 
     progress with respect to such efforts, to improve the 
     tracking of reasons for case closures.''.

     SEC. 303. LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF TANF APPLICANTS AND 
                   RECIPIENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended by 
     striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Longitudinal Studies of Applicants and Recipients To 
     Determine the Factors That Contribute to Positive Employment 
     and Family Outcomes.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or interagency agreements, shall conduct 
     longitudinal studies in at least 5, and not more than 10, 
     States (or sub-State areas, except that no such area shall be 
     located in a State in which a Statewide study is being 
     conducted under this paragraph) of a representative sample of 
     families that receive, and applicants for, assistance under a 
     State program funded under this part or under a program 
     funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in 
     section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)).
       ``(2) Requirements.--The studies conducted under this 
     subsection shall--
       ``(A) follow families that cease to receive assistance, 
     families that receive assistance throughout the study period, 
     and families diverted from assistance programs; and
       ``(B) collect information on--
       ``(i) family and adult demographics (including race, 
     ethnicity or national origin, primary language, gender, 
     barriers to employment, educational status of adults, prior 
     work history, prior history of welfare receipt);
       ``(ii) family income (including earnings, unemployment 
     compensation, and child support);
       ``(iii) receipt of assistance, benefits, or services under 
     other needs-based assistance programs (including the food 
     stamp program, the medicaid program under title XIX, earned 
     income tax credits, housing assistance, and the type and 
     amount of any child care);
       ``(iv) the reasons for leaving or returning to needs-based 
     assistance programs;
       ``(v) work participation status and activities (including 
     the scope and duration of work activities and the types of 
     industries and occupations for which training is provided);
       ``(vi) sanction status (including reasons for sanction);
       ``(vii) time limit for receipt of assistance status 
     (including months remaining with respect to such time limit);
       ``(viii) recipient views regarding program participation; 
     and
       ``(ix) measures of income change, poverty, extreme poverty, 
     food security and use of food pantries and soup kitchens, 
     homelessness and the use of shelters, and other measures of 
     family well-being and hardship over a 5-year period.
       ``(3) Comparability of results.--The Secretary shall, to 
     the extent possible, ensure that the studies conducted under 
     this subsection produce comparable results and information.
       ``(4) Reports.--
       ``(A) Interim reports.--Not later than October 1, 2006, the 
     Secretary shall publish interim findings from at least 12 
     months of longitudinal data collected under the studies 
     conducted under this subsection.

[[Page S4712]]

       ``(B) Subsequent reports.--Not later than October 1, 2008, 
     the Secretary shall publish findings from at least 36 months 
     of longitudinal data collected under the studies conducted 
     under this subsection.''.
       (b) Annual Report To Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Section 411(b) (42 U.S.C. 611(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting ``(including types of sanctions or other 
     grant reductions)'' after ``financial characteristics''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, disaggregated by race, ethnicity or 
     national origin, primary language, gender, education level, 
     and, with respect to closed cases, the reason the case was 
     closed'' before the semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the economic well-being of children and families 
     receiving assistance under the State programs funded under 
     this part and of children and families that have ceased to 
     receive such assistance, using longitudinal matched data 
     gathered from federally supported programs, and including 
     State-by-State data that details the distribution of earnings 
     and stability of employment of such families and (to the 
     extent feasible) describes, with respect to such families, 
     the distribution of income from known sources (including 
     employer-reported wages, assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part, and benefits under the food stamp 
     program), the ratio of such families' income to the poverty 
     line, and the extent to which such families receive or 
     received noncash benefits and child care assistance, 
     disaggregated by race, ethnicity or national origin, primary 
     language, gender, education level, whether the case remains 
     open, and, with respect to closed cases, the reason the case 
     was closed.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 411(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     611(a)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
       ``(7) Report on economic well-being of current and former 
     recipients.--The report required by paragraph (1) for a 
     fiscal quarter shall include for that quarter such 
     information as the Secretary may specify in order for the 
     Secretary to include in the annual reports to Congress 
     required under subsection (b) the information described in 
     paragraph (5) of that subsection.''.

     SEC. 304. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY.

       Section 411 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Protection of Individual Privacy.--With respect to 
     any information concerning individuals or families receiving 
     assistance, or applying for assistance, under the State 
     programs funded under this part that is publicly disclosed by 
     the Secretary, the Secretary shall ensure that such 
     disclosure is made in a manner that protects the privacy of 
     such individuals and families.''.

                        TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act take effect on October 1, 
     2003.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator 
Feingold and Senator Landrieu in introducing the Fair Treatment and Due 
Process Protection Act of 2003, which will benefit low-income families 
across the Nation by providing inportant civil rights protections to 
welfare recipients.
  Many families who apply for welfare benefits do not speak English or 
have limited English proficiency. Yet when they arrive at the welfare 
office, there is no interpreter or translator to assist them. Too 
often, eligible families leave the welfare office not enrolled in the 
program and without access to needed benefits and services. Even those 
who succeed in enrolling often leave the welfare office without 
understanding the rules for participation, and are later penalized and 
lose benefits.
  In virtually all of these cases, families want to play by the rules, 
but barriers such as limited English language skills prevent them from 
doing so. By helping to eliminate the language barriers, we can help 
them to play by the rules.
  Under the Food Stamp program, States are already required to evaluate 
applicants' English language skills and provide translation and 
interpreter services when necessary. Our bill will extend this same 
requirement to the welfare program to ensure that families who need 
benefits actually get them and can understand how to comply with the 
program.
  States would also be required to advise adults on the programs 
available in their community to help them learn English. For 
individuals who elect to participate in an English language program, 
states would be able to count these activities toward the federal work 
requirements.
  Clearly, families must be able to play by the rules, but the rules 
must be fair, especially when children are at risk. Today, however, 
when States impose penalties, they often penalize the entire family. 
Even money to support the childern in these families is suspended. Our 
bill provides important protections against unnecessary penalties.
  States would be required to inform families of the specific reasons 
for imposing a penalty and what the families can do to avoid it. States 
would also be prohibited from continuing a penalty after the family has 
come into compliance. It is unfair to penalize families for 
noncompliance because they did not understand the rules. The children 
in these families deserve to be cared for.
  An additional provision in this bill encourages States to collect 
data on welfare outcomes, including why families leave welfare and how 
they fare over the long term. It also encourages States to collect data 
by race, ethnic background, and primary language, so that disparities 
in access, use, or well-being become known and can be addressed by 
changes in policy and programs. The knowledge obtained from these data 
will help to ensure that welfare policies help more people in better 
ways.
  Protecting families from discrimination because of their native 
language, safeguarding them from unnecessary and harmful penalties, and 
understanding how policies affect families are important parts of 
genuine and fair welfare reform. The Fair Treatment and Due Process 
Protection Act of 2003 will help many more families to obtain the 
support they so desperately need, and I urge my colleagues to approve 
these important protections.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN.
  S. 771. A bill to improve the investigation and prosecution of child 
abuse cases through Children Advocacy Centers; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I 
believe will bring renewed focus to the battle against child abuse and 
the services we provide child victims of crimes. Today, I am 
introducing the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 2003, which reauthorizes 
the Children's Advocacy Centers. These centers bring together law 
enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services and medical and 
mental health professionals to provide comprehensive, child-focused 
services to child victims of crimes. Operating in all 50 States, 
Children's Advocacy Centers served over 116,000 child victims last 
year. Of these victims, 26,934 received onsite medical exams, 27,684 
received counseling and 69,443 went through a forensic interview 
process specially designed for children. Seventy-six percent of the 
children they serviced were under the age of 12.
  In 1994, this body passed a piece of legislation that I authored and 
had been advocating for a number of years, the Violence Against Women 
Act. When we passed this landmark legislation, what we said as a 
Congress, and were saying as a Nation as a whole, was that domestic 
violence is not a family problem to be dealt with quietly behind the 
scenes, but a national crisis in need of a coordinated response from 
law enforcement, courts and the medical community. Backed by a nearly 
$1\1/2\ billion commitment of Federal funds, the Violence Against Women 
Act spurred a sea change on the Federal, State and local levels in how 
police, prosecutors, judges, medical personnel and others, process and 
handle cases of domestic abuse. The Violence Against Women Act made it 
clear that victims of domestic violence were, in fact, victims: Victims 
in need of the full extent of this nation's medical and legal 
resources. The bill I am introducing today is designed to bring this 
same type of concentrated focus, general awareness, and coordinated 
response to victims of child abuse, the most heinous and 
incomprehensible form of violence against the most vulnerable and 
innocent people in our lives.
  In 1987 Congressman Bud Cramer, then District Attorney of Madison, 
County, AL, founded the Nation's first Children's Advocacy Center. As 
stated earlier, these centers bring together law enforcement, 
prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health 
professionals to provide comprehensive, coordinated services to child 
victims of crimes. Congress responded several years later. As Chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, I

[[Page S4713]]

sponsored, along with Senator Thurmond, the Crime Control Act of 1990, 
P.L. 101-647, which created the Court Appointed Special Advocates, 
(CASA), program, to provide for the appointment of advocates on behalf 
of abused and neglected children. Two years later, Congress created the 
Children's Advocacy Centers as part of the 1992 reauthorization of the 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, P.L. 102-586. 
The 1992 legislation amended the Victims of Child Abuse Act to include 
Child Advocacy Centers with a fiscal year 1993 total authorization 
level of $20 million and such sums as necessary for fiscal years 1994 
through 1996. In particular, Senator Nickles and Representative Cramer 
were instrumental in championing the Children's Advocacy Centers. The 
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996, P.L. 104-235, 
reauthorized the Children's Advocacy Centers through fiscal year 2000 
but made no substantive changes to the program, nor did it provide 
specific authorization levels.

  The Children's Advocacy Centers were a logical complement to the CASA 
program I authored in 1990, by bringing together law enforcement, 
prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health 
professionals to provide comprehensive, child-focused services to child 
victims of crimes. The centers provide immediate attention to the young 
victims of sexual and physical abuse, so that they are not ``twice 
abused,'' first by the perpetrator and second by a system which used to 
shuttle them from a medical clinic to a counseling center to the police 
station to the D.A.'s office.
  Communities with Children's Advocacy Centers report increased 
successful prosecution of perpetrators, more consistent follow-up to 
child abuse reports, increased medical and mental health referrals for 
victims, and more compassionate support for child victims and their 
families. Widely cited as an efficient, cost-effective mechanism of 
handling child abuse cases, these centers are widely supported by 
police, prosecutors and the courts. In a May 1998 publication titled, 
New Directions from the Field, the Department of Justice included 
Children's Advocacy Centers as their number one recommendation for 
improving services to children who directly experience or witness 
violence in their homes, neighborhoods and schools--number one.
  Today in my state of Delaware, there are two operational Children's 
Advocacy Centers. One is located in Wilmington and one is located in 
Milford. A third center is scheduled to open in Dover. These centers 
provide a safe, comfortable setting in which cross-trained 
professionals interview alleged victims and begin initial investigation 
and evidence collection. Like other centers they offer on-site physical 
exams by specially trained pediatricians, prosecutors on hand to make 
immediate contact with victims and families, referrals to mental health 
services and most importantly, one-time minimally intrusive taped 
interviews of child victims. This last service, one-time minimally 
intrusive taped interviews, is particularly important. Let me read to 
you from a letter I received from John Humphrey, a retired police 
officer who now acts as executive director of the Delaware Children's 
Advocacy Centers, to demonstrate why:

       I am a retired New Castle County Police Lieutenant that for 
     12 of my 21 years investigated child abuse and child death 
     cases. One of the most important pieces of the entire case is 
     the interview of the child victim. . . . Often times I saw 
     children subjected to at least 3-4 interviews by 3 or 4 
     different interviewers, all with varying levels of 
     interviewing expertise. The end result is three or four 
     versions of events . . . answers vary because of the manner 
     in which questions are asked and the skills of the 
     interviewer. . . . Defense attorneys use that alone to poke 
     holes in a child's story. . . . Children's Advocacy Centers 
     bring all of the involved parties to the table at the same 
     time to work as a team. . . . We use forensic interviewers 
     specially trained in interviewing children. . . . This 
     results in video taped interviews of such quality that most 
     defense attorneys are asking for pleas to escape trial. We 
     are getting good pleas with good sentences. Most importantly, 
     this process minimizes the trauma a child victim and witness 
     must endure by doing one interview of such quality that the 
     child may be spared from walking into a courtroom full of 
     strangers to tell what happened. I would have given anything 
     as a police detective to have a children's advocacy center. 
     It expedites the process, minimizes the problems associated 
     with duplicative and unnecessary interviews, opens the lines 
     of combination between agencies, and provides the best 
     professional assessment of a case.

  Last year Children's Advocacy Centers in Delaware handled 1,000 cases 
where child victims as young as 3 alleged physical or sexual abuse. Mr. 
Humphrey estimates that the centers eliminated 2,500 unnecessary 
interviews by using the multidisciplinary approach.
  The child abuse and crime statistics in this country are outrageous. 
Nationally, 3.9 million of the nation's 22.3 million children between 
the ages of 12 and 17 have been seriously physically assaulted and one 
in three girls and one in five boys are sexually abused before the age 
of 18. We have to do more to protect our children, by reauthorizing 
Children's Advocacy Centers we can.
  I want to believe that we are doing everything we can to prevent 
crimes against children and, if God forbid they do occur, that we are 
doing everything we can to treat the victims. This piece of legislation 
would do just that.
  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. 771

       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 ``Victims of Child Abuse Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE ACT OF 1990.

       The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 211 (42 U.S.C. 13001) by--
       (A) redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (9) 
     and (10), respectively; and
       (B) inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6)(A) the National Children's Alliance (NCA) is a 
     nationwide not-for-profit membership organization whose 
     members are local Children's Advocacy Centers;
       ``(B) the NCA's mission is to assist communities seeking to 
     improve their response to child abuse by supporting the 
     development, growth, and continuation of Children's Advocacy 
     Centers (CACs); and
       ``(C) the NCA provides training, technical assistance, and 
     networking opportunities to CACs nationally;
       ``(7)(A) CACs are community partnerships committed to a 
     multidisciplinary team approach by professionals pursuing the 
     truth in child abuse investigations; and
       ``(B) CACs are based in child-friendly facilities that 
     enable law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective 
     services, and the medical and mental health communities to 
     work as a team to investigate, prosecute, and treat child 
     abuse;
       ``(8)(A) working in partnership with the National 
     Children's Alliance, Regional Children's Advocacy Centers 
     were established by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention to provide outreach and assistance to 
     communities seeking to develop a Children's Advocacy Center; 
     and
       ``(B) Regional Children's Advocacy Centers provide 
     information, consultation, training, and technical assistance 
     helping to establish child-focused programs that facilitate 
     and support coordination among agencies responding to child 
     abuse. Regional Children's Advocacy Centers also provide 
     regional services to help Children's Advocacy Centers already 
     in existence;'';
       (2) in section 212 (42 U.S.C. 13001a)--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (3) and (6);
       (B) redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (3) 
     and (4), respectively; and
       (C) redesignating paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
       (3) in section 213 (42 U.S.C. 13001b)--
       (A) by striking the caption for the section and inserting 
     ``children's advocacy centers''; and
       (B) in subsection (a), by striking beginning with ``the 
     Administrator'' through paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following: ``The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall establish Regional 
     Children's Advocacy Centers to--
       ``(1) focus attention on child victims by assisting 
     communities to develop and maintain local Children's Advocacy 
     Centers which are child-focused community-oriented facility 
     based programs designed to improve the resources available to 
     children and families affected by child abuse and neglect;'';
       (C) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``, in coordination 
     with the Director,'';
       (D) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking the text and inserting 
     ``The Administrator, in consultation with the National 
     Children's Alliance, shall solicit proposals for assistance 
     under this section when existing contracts with Regional 
     Children's Advocacy Centers are close to expiration.''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking the matter before 
     clause (i) and inserting the following: ``The Administrator 
     shall select proposals for funding that--'';
       (E) in subsection (d)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, in coordination with 
     the Director,''; and

[[Page S4714]]

       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and the Director''; 
     and
       (F) by striking subsection (e);
       (4) in section 214 (42 U.S.C. 13002)--
       (A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the officials from the Office of Victims of Crime, shall make 
     grants to develop and implement local multidisciplinary child 
     abuse investigations and prosecution programs. The National 
     Children's Alliance shall serve as the subgrantor of these 
     funds.''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``, in coordination 
     with the Director,''; and
       (5) in section 214B (42 U.S.C. 13004), by amending the text 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) Sections 213 and 214.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out sections 213 and 214, $15,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
       ``(b) Section 214A.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out section 214A, $5,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeWine, 
        Mr. Biden, Mr. Shelby, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 773. A bill to reauthorize funding for the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Protecting 
Our Children Comes First Act of 2003,'' which will double funding for 
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, 
reauthorize the Center through fiscal year 2007, and increase Federal 
support to help NCMEC programs to find missing children across the 
Nation.
  I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Kennedy, DeWine, Biden, Shelby and 
Lincoln join me as the original cosponsors of this bipartisan 
legislation. Today, Senators DeWine, Lincoln and Shelby launched the 
new Senate Caucus on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. I am 
honored to join the Caucus co-chairs as a founding member of the 
Caucus, and thank them for their leadership in this area.
  It pains us all to see on TV, in the newspapers or milk cartons photo 
after photo of missing children from every corner of the Nation. As a 
father and grandfather, I know that an abducted child is the worst 
nightmare. Unfortunately, it is a nightmare that happens all too often. 
Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that 2,200 children are 
reported missing each day. There are approximately 114,600 attempted 
stranger abductions every year, with 3,000 to 5,000 of those attempts 
succeeding. Experts estimate that children and youth comprise between 
85 and 90 percent of missing person reports. These families deserve the 
assistance of the American people and helping hand of the Congress.
  As the Nation's top resource center for child protection, the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children spearheads national 
efforts to locate and recover missing children and raises public 
awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, molestation, and 
sexual exploitation.
  NCMEC works to make our children safer by being a national voice and 
advocate for those too young to vote or speak up for their own rights. 
The Center operates under a Congressional mandate and works in 
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to coordinate the efforts 
of law enforcement officers, social service agencies, elected 
officials, judges, prosecutors, educators, and the public and private 
sectors to break the cycle of violence that historically has 
perpetuated these needless crimes against children.
  The Center's professionals have disturbingly busy jobs--they have 
worked on more than 90,000 cases of missing and exploited children 
since its 1984 founding, helping to recover more than 70,000 children, 
and raised its recovery rate from 60 percent in the 1980s to 94 percent 
today. The Center has set up a nationwide, toll free, 24-hour telephone 
hotline to take reports about missing children and clues that might 
lead to their recovery, a National Child Pornography Tipline to handle 
calls from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children 
through the production and distribution of pornography, and a 
CyberTipline to process online leads from individuals reporting the 
sexual exploitation of children. It has taken the lead in circulating 
millions of photographs of missing children, and serves as a vital 
resource for the 17,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the 
U.S. in the search for missing children and the quest for child 
protection.

  NCMEC is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia and operates branch 
offices in five other locations throughout the country to provide 
hands-on assistance to families of missing children, advocating 
legislative changes to better protect children, conducting an array of 
prevention and awareness programs, and motivating individuals to become 
personally involved in child-protection issues. It has also grown into 
an international organization, establishing the International Division 
of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has 
been working to fulfill the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 
International child Abduction. The International Division provides 
assistance to parents, law enforcement, attorneys, nonprofit 
organizations, and other concerned individuals who are seeking 
assistance in preventing or resolving international child abductions.
  NCMEC manages to do all of this good work with a $10 million annual 
DOJ grant, which expires after fiscal year 2003. We must act now both 
to extend its authorization and increase the Center's funding to $20 
million each year through fiscal year 2007 so that it can continue to 
help keep children safe and families intact around the Nation. There is 
so much more to be done to ensure the safety of our children, and the 
bipartisan legislation we introduce today will help the Center in its 
efforts to prevent crimes that are committed against them.
  The Protecting Our children Comes First Act also increases Federal 
support for NCMEC programs to find missing children by allowing the 
U.S. Secret Service to provide forensic and investigating assistance to 
the NCMEC, as well as any State or local law enforcement agency, in any 
investigation involving missing or exploited children.
  The bill also amends of the Missing Children's assistance Act to 
coordinate the operation of the Center's CyberTipline to provide all 
online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child 
sexual exploitation, including the distribution of child pornography, 
online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. 
Since its creation in 1998, the CyberTipline has fielded almost 100,000 
reports, which has allowed Internet users to quickly and easily report 
suspicious activities linked to the Internet.
  We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be 
moved easily through the Senate and House. Efforts to protect our 
children do not deserve to be used as pawns by groups who play politics 
by attaching it to more controversial measures. I applaud the ongoing 
work of the Center and hope both the Senate and the House will promptly 
pass this bill to provide more Federal supply for the NCMEC to continue 
to find missing children and protect exploited children across the 
country.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 773

       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 ``Protecting Our Children 
     Comes First Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FORENSIC AND INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT OF MISSING AND 
                   EXPLOITED CHILDREN.

       Section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, officers and agents of the Secret Service are 
     authorized, at the request of any State or local law 
     enforcement agency or the National Center for Missing and 
     Exploited Children, to provide forensic and investigative 
     assistance in support of any investigation involving missing 
     or exploited children.''.

     SEC. 3. CREATION OF CYBER TIPLINE.

       Section 404(b)(1) of the Missing Children's Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page S4715]]

       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) coordinate the operation of a cyber tipline to 
     provide online users an effective means of reporting 
     Internet-related child sexual exploitation in the areas of--
       ``(i) distribution of child pornography;
       ``(ii) online enticement of children for sexual acts; and
       ``(iii) child prostitution.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a) of the Missing Children's 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5777(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``fiscal years 2000 through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2007.''.
       (b) Annual Grant to National Center For Missing and 
     Exploited Children.--Section 404(b)(2) of the Missing 
     Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(2)) is amended 
     by striking ``$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 
     2001, 2002, and 2003'' and inserting ``$20,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 2004 through 2007''.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children is a critical component of our Nation's battle 
against child pornography and child exploitation. It is absolutely 
dedicated to eradicating these evils, and its members work tirelessly 
towards this end. The Center deserves more than just kind words for 
these heroic efforts; Federal funding is necessary for it to continue 
this good work. Indeed, Congress has tasked the Center with many 
missions, including maintaining the cyber-tipline that receives reports 
of on-line child pornography, which the Center forwards to appropriate 
law enforcement officials. In this, as well as many other areas, the 
Center forms a valuable partnership with both Federal and State law 
enforcement officials and prosecutors in redressing a host of crimes 
against children.
  The Center's cause is just and its history of performance is 
excellent. I am pleased to be the lead cosponsor of legislation that 
will continue to authorize funding for the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children for the next four years. Senator Leahy and I 
introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress, and our bipartisan 
effort continues in this new Congress. Our bill again authorizes 
funding at $20 million per year--twice the previous authorization--in 
recognition of the severity of the problem and the increased duties the 
Center has taken on.
  As the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am confident that this 
bill will become law very soon. I hope all of my colleagues will join 
Senator Leahy and me in supporting this bill.

                          ____________________