[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.
____________________