[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 20, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6708-S6715]
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 and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1083. A bill to give States the flexibility to reduce bureaucracy
by streamlining enrollment processes for the medicaid and State
children's health insurance programs through better linkages with
programs providing nutrition and related assistance to low-income
families; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's
Express Lane to Health Coverage Act of 2003. This bill will give States
greater flexibility in the ways they can enroll uninsured children into
Medicaid and SCHIP while at the same time increasing government
efficiency. Furthermore, it will help States reduce bureaucracy and
red-tape.
In 1999, 4.4 million low-income uninsured children were in families
that received benefits through Food Stamps, the National School Lunch
Program, or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children, WIC. Recognizing this, I worked to include a
provision in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000,
[[Page S6709]]
which allowed schools and school districts to share school lunch
information with State health insurance agencies for outreach and
enrollment activities.
The good news is that this provision has inspired numerous States to
share information with Medicaid and SCHIP for the purposes of
enrollment and outreach. Some States and communities have gone even
further and simplified the health insurance application process by
utilizing information provided in another program application to make
the eligibility or renewal determination for Medicaid and or SCHIP.
Some States would like to go further still, and determine that a
child is income eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP based on the fact that
they have already been found eligible for a nutrition or other
comparable program that operates under similar financial guidelines.
Unfortunately, they have found Federal law not flexible enough.
The Express Lane Act would give States the option of establishing
that their Medicaid or SCHIP financial eligibility rules are satisfied
when a family presents proof that their child is already enrolled in
another public program with comparable income guidelines. Express lane
does not affect other, non-income eligibility requirements and
maintains existing quality control measures.
If given the ability to adopt automatic income eligibility, as set
out in The Children's Express Lane to Health Coverage Act of 2003,
States could reach a tangible population of uninsured children, build
upon the initiative already taken by families, eliminate multi-agency
duplicative efforts to collect and verify income and resource
eligibility, and at the same time maintain program integrity.
______
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 1084. A bill to establish formally the United States Military
Cancer Institute Center of Excellence, to provide for the maintenance
of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment,
to provide for a study of the epidemiological causes of cancer among
various ethnic groups for prevention efforts, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the United States
Military Cancer Institute Center of Excellence Research Collaborative
Act of 2003. This legislation seeks to formally establish the United
States Military Cancer Institute, Center of Excellence and seeks
support for the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in
cancer epidemiology, prevention, and control. The mission of the
Institute is to provide for the maintenance of health in the military
by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and to study the
epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By
formally establishing the USMCI as a Center of Excellence it will
better unite military research efforts with other cancer research
centers.
Cancer prevention and treatment for the military population is a
significant issue, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the
military cancer assets already established. The USMCI has a
comprehensive database on its beneficiary population of 9 million
people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central
Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14
years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military
personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is
predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.
The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is also a Professor of
Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences,
USUHS. A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has
also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.
The USMCI currently functions in the Washington, D.C. area, and its
components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the
Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology,
and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Currently there
are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of
Defense civilian scientists, in the USMCI.
The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military
medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on
the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among
the entire population including Asian, Causasian, African-American and
Hispanic populations.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1084
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 ``United States Military
Cancer Institute Center of Excellence Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. RESEARCH BY UNITED STATES MILITARY CANCER INSTITUTE
CENTER OF EXCELLENCE.
(a) Formal Establishment of United States Military Cancer
Institute Center of Excellence.--(1) There is hereby
established the United States Military Cancer Institute
Center of Excellence in the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences (USUHS).
(2) The Center shall consist of the United States Military
Cancer Institute (USMCI) and such other elements of the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences as the
President of the University considers appropriate.
(b) Research.--(1) The United States Military Cancer
Institute Center of Excellence shall carry out a research
study on the epidemiological causes of cancer among
populations of various ethnic origins, including an
assessment of the carcinogenic effect of various genetic and
environmental factors, and of disparities in health, inherent
or common among populations of various ethnic origins.
(2) The research study shall include complementary research
on oncologic nursing.
(c) Collaborative Research.--The United States Military
Cancer Institute Center of Excellence shall carry out the
research study required pursuant to subsection (b) in
collaboration with other cancer research organizations and
entities selected by the Center for purposes of the research
study and construction.
(d) Reports.--(1) Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Director of the United States Military Cancer Institute
Center of Excellence shall submit to the President of the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences a report
on the results of the research study required pursuant to
subsection (b).
(2) Not later than 60 days after the receipt of a report
under paragraph (1), the President of the University shall
transmit such report to Congress, together with such
additional information and recommendations as the President
of the University considers appropriate.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Daschle, and Mr.
Dorgan):
S. 1085. A bill to provide for a Bureau of Reclamation program to
assist states and local communities in evaluating and developing rural
and small community water supply systems, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Reclamation Rural and Small Community Water Enhancement Act, which is
being co-sponsored by my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan,
and Senator Baucus.
In introducing this bill, let me note that the Economic Research
Service at the Agriculture Department estimates that 56 million
Americans--around 20 percent of the population--live in nonmetropolitan
areas. In the arid west, this percentage is likely much higher. In my
home State of New Mexico, for example, over 50 percent of the
population resides outside the four major metropolitan areas--clearly a
significant number of people.
This bill is intended to address a critical issue facing many small
towns and rural areas--access to adequate water supplies to provide for
present and future needs. A stable and reliable water supply is the
foundation for the economic activity that sustains our communities.
Addressing this most basic need, however, poses a challenge that many
of these localities simply cannot meet on their own. The challenge is
magnified by the prolonged drought that many are predicting for the
arid West.
For a number of reasons, including limited access to water supplies
and the requirements of the Federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water
Acts, many small communities in the western United States are taking a
regional approach to water that involves the cooperative development of
water
[[Page S6710]]
projects serving several communities over a large area. In New Mexico,
the State Water Trust Board prioritizes funding assistance to those
projects that represent a partnership of communities on a regional
basis. Currently, there are three such projects rapidly taking shape in
1. Eastern New Mexico; 2. the Santa Fe Area; and 3. the Espanola
Valley.
In other areas of the country, this regional approach has already
taken root. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to
construct seven rural water supply projects--most of these in the Great
Plains region. The authorized cost of these projects is approximately
$1.8 billion. In just two years, however, the administration has cut
back the appropriations requests for authorized rural water projects by
80 percent, or almost $60 million. This includes zeroing out the
funding for most of these projects--a policy choice severely impacting
those communities relying on this infrastructure.
The bill being introduced today is intended to ensure there exists an
active Federal program to address water needs in the rural West. It
does so in a manner that respects the role of the States in water
resources management and is fiscally responsible by requiring a
financial partnership between Federal, State, and local entities. The
bill utilizes the experience and expertise of the Bureau of Reclamation
to implementation a rural water program that complements, not
duplicates, existing Federal programs at the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of Agriculture; ensures that existing
projects move towards full and timely implementation; and ensures that
Reclamation is fully authorized to provide assistance in evaluating all
water supply options if requested by rural communities.
I believe that this is a bill for which there should be strong
bipartisan support. Having helped to reclaim the West during the 20th
century, the Bureau of Reclamation should help sustain it in the 21st
century. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation
and, by that, support rural and small communities within our States.
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. 1085
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Reclamation Rural and Small
Community Water Enhancement Act.''
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Federal reclamation laws.--The term ``Federal
reclamation laws'' means the Reclamation Act and Acts
amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto;
(2) Regional rural water supply system.--The term
``regional rural water supply system'' means a water supply
system that serves multiple towns or communities in a rural
area (including Indian reservations) where such towns or
communities have a population for exceeding 40,000 persons.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
(A) In General.--The Secretary, acting pursuant to the
Federal reclamation laws, is directed to undertake a program
to investigate and identify opportunities to ensure safe and
adequate regional rural water supply systems for municipal
and industrial use in small communities and rural areas
through the construction of new regional rural water supply
systems and the enhancement of existing rural water supply
systems.
(b) Exception.--
(1) In conducting the investigations and studies authorized
by this Act, the Secretary may include a town or community
with a population in excess of 40,000 persons if, in the
Secretary's discretion, such town or community is considered
to be a critical partner in the proposed regional rural water
supply system.
(2) In conducting a feasibility study of a regional rural
water supply system that includes a community with a
population in excess of 40,000 persons, the Secretary may
consider a non-federal cost share in excess of the percentage
set forth in sections 6(a) and 6(b)(5).
(c) Limitation.--Such program shall be limited to the
States and areas referred to in section 1 of the Reclamation
Act of 1902 (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388), as amended,
and Indian reservation lands within the external boundaries
of such States and areas.
(d) Agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into
such agreements and promulgate such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of this
Act.
SEC. 4. COORDINATION AND PLANNING.
(a) Coordination.--
(1) Consultation.--In undertaking this program, the
Secretary shall consult and coordinate with the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Director of the Indian Health
Service, in order to develop criteria to ensure that the
program does not duplicate, but instead complements,
activities undertaken pursuant to the authorities
administered by such agency heads.
(2) Report on authorities.--Within one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, a
report setting forth the results of the consultation required
in paragraph (1) and criteria developed pursuant to such
consultation.
(b) Report and Action on Authorized Projects.--
(1) Within one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives a report setting
forth--
(A) the status of all rural water projects within the
jurisdiction of the Secretary authorized prior to the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(B) the Secretary's plan, including projected financial and
workforce requirements, for the completion of the rural water
projects within the time frames set forth in the public laws
authorizing the projects of the final engineering reports
submitted pursuant thereto.
(2) The Secretary shall take all necessary steps to
complete the projects within the time frames identified in
subsection (1)(B).
SEC. 5. APPRAISAL INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) Appraisal Investigations.--Based on evidence of local
interest and upon the request of a local sponsor, the
Secretary may undertake appraisal investigations to identify
opportunities for the construction of regional rural water
supply systems and the enhancement of existing rural water
supply systems for small communities and rural areas. Each
such investigation shall include recommendations as to the
preparation of a feasibility study of the potential system or
system enhancement.
(b) Considerations.--Appraisal investigations undertaken
pursuant to this Act shall consider, among other things--
(1) whether an established water supply exists for the
proposed regional water supply system;
(2) the need for the regional rural water supply system or
for enhancements to an existing rural water system, including
but not limited to, alternative water supply opportunities
and projected demand for water supply;
(3) environmental considerations relating to the regional
rural water supply system or rural water system enhancement;
(4) public health and safety considerations relating to the
regional rural water supply system or rural water system
enhancement;
(5) Indian trust responsibility considerations relating to
the regional rural water supply system or rural water system
enhancement; and
(6) the availability of other Federal authorities or
programs to address the water supply needs identified.
(c) Consultation and Cooperation.--The Secretary shall
consult and cooperate with appropriate Federal, state,
tribal, regional, and local authorities during the conduct of
each appraisal investigation conducted pursuant to this Act.
(d) Costs Nonreimbursable.--The costs of such appraisal
investigations shall be nonreimbursable.
(e) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make
available to the public, upon request, the results of each
appraisal investigation undertaken pursuant to this Act, and
shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of
the availability of those results.
SEC. 6. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
(a) Feasibility Studies.--The Secretary is authorized to
participate with appropriate Federal, state, tribal,
regional, and local authorities in studies to determine the
feasibility of regional rural water supply systems and rural
water supply system enhancements where an appraisal
investigation so warrants. The Federal share of the costs of
such feasibility studies shall not exceed 50 percent of the
total, except that the Secretary may increase the Federal
share of the costs of such feasibility study if the Secretary
determines, based upon a demonstration of financial hardship,
that the non-Federal participant is unable to contribute at
least 50 percent of the costs of such study. The Secretary
may accept as part of the non-Federal cost share the
contribution of such in-kind services by the non-Federal
participant that the Secretary determines will contribute
substantially toward the conduct and completion of the study.
(b) Considerations.--In addition to the requirements of
other Federal laws, feasibility studies authorized under this
Act shall consider, among other things--
(1) whether an established water supply exists for the
proposed regional rural water supply system;
[[Page S6711]]
(2) near- and long-term water demand and supplies in the
study area including any opportunities to treat and utilize
impaired water supplies through innovative and economically
viable treatment technologies;
(3) public health and safety and environmental quality
issues related to the regional rural water supply system or
rural water system enhancement;
(4) opportunities for water conservation in the study area
to reduce water use and water system costs;
(5) the construction costs and projected operation and
maintenance costs of the proposed regional rural water supply
system and an assessment of participating communities'
ability to pay 20 percent to 50 percent of the construction
costs and the full share of the system operation and
maintenance costs;
(6) opportunities for mitigation of fish and wildlife
losses incurred as a result of the construction of the
regional rural water supply system or rural water system
enhancement on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological
equivalency, concurrent with system construction; and
(7) the extent to which assistance for rural water supply
is available pursuant to other Federal authorities and the
likely effectiveness of efforts to coordinate assistance
provided by the Secretary with other available Federal
programs and assistance.
(c) Use of Other Reports.--In conducting a feasibility
study pursuant to this section, or an appraisal investigation
under section 5, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, utilize, in whole or in part, any engineering or
other relevant report submitted by a state, tribal, regional,
or local authority associated with the proposed regional
rural water supply system.
(d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make
available to the public, upon request, the results of each
feasibility study undertaken pursuant to this Act, and shall
promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of the
availability of those results.
(e) Disclaimer.--Nothing contained in this section shall be
interpreted as requiring a feasibility study or imposing any
other new requirement for rural water projects or programs
that are already authorized.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION.
There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Bingaman, in introducing the Reclamation Rural and Small
Community Water Enhancement Act, S. 1085.
The Bureau of Reclamation has accomplished a great deal over the last
century, starting with the early irrigation and water development
programs that opened the West to settlement and economic growth. Clean,
abundant water supplies were integral to our Nation's westward
expansion. Without the vision and effort of the Bureau over the last
century, the West would be a vastly different, and less hospitable,
place.
Though the role of the Bureau has changed over the years, it is still
the premier Federal water development agency. Today, one of its primary
duties is the building of rural water projects in South Dakota and
other Western States. Rural areas often lack the resources and
infrastructure necessary to provide stable water supplies to their
residents. Most families, farmers, and ranchers rely on inadequate
wells, or live in areas where the water quality is so poor they are
required to truck or haul water over long distances. Rural water
projects conducted by the Bureau have helped overcome these obstacles,
tackling the problem on a regional level and vastly improving the
quality of water and the quality of life in much of my State. Rural
water systems have become an indispensable lifeline to help deal with
the severe drought that has affected much my State.
The bill we are introducing today takes the next, logical step to
bring the Bureau's rural water projects into the 21st century. The
Reclamation Rural and Small Community Water Enhancement Act will create
a new program within the Bureau of Reclamation to help rural and tribal
communities develop water supply solutions, like rural water systems,
to address regional water needs. The Bureau's experience in
administering other rural water systems will ensure this program
compliments existing Federal drinking water programs, like those
operated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
Agriculture, and provide rural communities with the tools they need to
plan for the future.
As we look forward, however, it is equally important that we not
ignore those projects that have already received approval by Congress.
In South Dakota, the Mni Wiconi, Mid-Dakota, Perkins County, and Lewis
and Clark rural water systems will serve thousands of families, farms,
and businesses. Their timely completion is integral to the health,
welfare, and economic security of my State. Unfortunately, the
administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request drastically cuts
funding for these and other rural water projects throughout the country
by more than 80 percent. This will lead to unnecessary delays in the
provision of drinking water to homes and families and will only serve
to increase the cost of the projects.
That is why this legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to
take all necessary steps to complete these and all other rural water
projects that have already received congressional authorization. The
bill recognizes the hard work that has already gone into the
development of these projects, and will help ensure that they are
completed on schedule. At the same time, this new program will aid in
the development of future projects so that other communities can
finally realize the benefits that a well-run rural water system can
provide.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Lautenberg):
S. 1086. A bill to repeal provisions of the PROTECT Act that do not
specifically deal with the prevention of the exploitation of children;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues
in introducing this legislation on fairness in our Federal sentencing
system. The Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in
Sentencing Act, or the JUDGES Act, will repeal a number of
controversial sentencing provisions that were added at the last moment
to the recently enacted ``AMBER Alert law'' on missing, abducted, and
exploited children.
These provisions--called the ``Feeney Amendment''--have nothing to do
with protecting children, and everything to do with handcuffing judges
and eliminating fairness in our Federal sentencing system. As Chief
Justice Rehnquist said, they ``do serious harm to the basic structure
of the sentencing guidelines system and . . . seriously impair the
ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.''
The Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar
Association, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and many prosecutors,
defense attorneys, law professors, civil rights organizations, and
business groups vigorously opposed them. Now that the child-abduction
legislation has passed, it is the responsibility of Congress to repeal
these extraneous and ill-considered provisions and begin a serious and
thorough review of the current sentencing guidelines system.
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was the result of extraordinary
bipartisan cooperation. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, over a ten-
year period, Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and I
worked with the Carter and Reagan administrations to strike the best
balance between the goal of consistent sentencing in Federal law and
the need to give Federal judges discretion to make the sentence fit the
crime in individual cases. There was also strong bipartisan cooperation
in the House Judiciary Committee, and we worked together over several
years to enact a strong, balanced, and bipartisan bill.
Many judges think the 1984 Act went too far in limiting their
discretion. Over the years, I have heard many Senators suggest that we
should give judges more authority to consider the circumstances of each
offender and the facts of each offense. Enacted without hearings or
meaningful debate, the Feeney Amendment was a giant step in the wrong
direction.
The Feeney Amendment effectively strips Federal judges of discretion
to impose individualized sentences, and transforms the longstanding
sentencing guidelines system into a mandatory minimum sentencing
system. It limits in several ways the ability of judges to depart
downwards from the guidelines. It overturns a unanimous 1996 Supreme
Court decision, Koon v. United States, which established a deferential
standard of review for departures from the guidelines based on the
facts of the case--thereby undermining what the Court described as the
``traditional sentencing discretion'' of trial
[[Page S6712]]
courts and the ``institutional advantage'' of Federal district courts
over appellate courts to make fact-based sentencing determinations.
The Feeney Amendment also limits the number of judges who can serve
on the Sentencing Commission, and directs the Commission to amend the
guidelines and policy statements under them ``to ensure that the
incidence of downward departures are [sic] substantially reduced.'' It
also requires the Attorney General to establish a ``judicial
blacklist'' by informing Congress whenever a district judge departs
downward from the guidelines. It imposes new, burdensome record-keeping
and reporting requirements on Federal judges, and requires the
Sentencing Commission to disclose confidential court records to the
House and Senate Judiciary Committees upon request. Earlier this month,
Chief Justice Rehnquist specifically criticized these record-keeping
and reporting requirements as potentially amounting ``to an unwarranted
and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the
performance of their judicial duties.''
It was an extreme step for Congress to insist that Federal judges--
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate--should not have
discretion to impose lower sentences in unusual cases, subject to
appeal. It was even more extreme to pass such a sweeping proposal
without the benefit of hearings and full debate in either House of
Congress.
Because the Feeney Amendment was introduced at the last possible
moment, Congress was deprived of full and balanced information on
whether departure decisions are made in inappropriate instances. The
Justice Department compounded that problem by submitting a highly
misleading letter on April 4th expressing its ``strong support'' for
the Amendment. The Department argued that the Amendment was justified
because an epidemic of lenient sentences was undermining the Sentencing
Reform Act. It failed, however, to mention that the committee report
accompanying the 1984 Act anticipated a departure rate of about 20
percent. Today, the rate at which judges depart from the guidelines
over the objection of the government is slightly more than 10 percent--
well within acceptable rates.
The Department claimed that there are too many downward departures
from the sentencing guidelines, but it failed to mention that,
according to the American Bar Association, almost 80 percent of these
departures are requested by the Justice Department itself. In arguing
for the abrogation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Boon v. United
States, the Department also failed to mention that it wins 78 percent
of all sentencing appeals, or that 85 percent of all defendants who
receive downward departures based on grounds other than cooperation
with the government nevertheless receive prison time.
Last week, I asked Michael Chertoff, a nominee to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, about his involvement in
drafting the Justice Department's letter of support for the Feeney
Amendment. He said that he had ``no part in drafting'' the letter, and
that he did not review the letter before it was sent. In his current
position as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal
Division in the Department, Mr. Chertoff is chiefly responsible for
formulating criminal law enforcement policy and advising the Attorney
General and the White House on matters of criminal law. The fact that
the Department's leading authority on criminal law did not participate
in writing its influential letter demonstrates the travesty of the
process that led to the Feeney Amendment's enactment.
It is important for Congress to undo the damage done to the Federal
criminal justice system. The JUDGES Act, which we are introducing today
and which Congressman Conyers is introducing in the House, repeals the
provisions of the Feeney Amendment that do not specifically involve sex
crimes or crimes against children--the purpose of the underlying child-
abduction legislation to which it was attached. In the place of these
ill-advised changes to Federal sentencing law, the JUDGES Act directs
the Sentencing Commission to report to Congress within 180 days on the
incidence of downward departures from the Sentencing Guidelines. The
Commission's report will provide Congress with useful information to
evaluate the need for reform, including information on rates of
departures by district, circuit, offense, and departure ground. It will
also provide a review of departure appeals, an assessment of the extent
to which departures affect the guideline system, and an assessment of
variations in the magnitude of departures and the frequency with which
the final sentences result in imprisonment, other conditions of
confinement, or release.
When completed, the Commission's report will provide a solid basis
for further action by Congress. We need to hold hearings; collect the
relevant data; consult with the judges, the Sentencing Commission, the
Justice Department, the defense bar, and other authorities; and decide
whether legislation is needed to improve the sentencing guidelines. If
judges are abusing their discretion, we should limit it. If more
discretion is appropriate, we should provide it. In the words of Chief
Justice Rehnquist, ``Before such legislation is enacted there should,
at least, be a thorough and dispassionate inquiry into the consequences
of such action.''
It was a serious mistake for Congress to enact the Feeney Amendment
over the strong objections of the Chief Justice, the Judicial
Conference, the American Bar Association, the Sentencing Commission,
and the overwhelming majority of prosecutors and defense attorneys who
deal with the guidelines on a daily basis. The JUDGES Act will correct
this mistake and set us on the right path to achieving any necessary
reforms. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the
National Association of Federal Defenders, and Families Against
Mandatory Minimums be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
May 20, 2003.
The Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The undersigned organizations write
to express our strong support for the JUDGES Act. Under the
guise of addressing crimes against children, the recently
enacted PROTECT Act (S. 151) effected broad and ill-
considered changes to our federal sentencing system. In
repealing those provisions that are not limited to child-
related and sexual offenses, the JUDGES Act would help
restore judicial discretion to impose just sentences in most
federal cases.
Enacted without hearings or meaningful debate, Title IV of
the PROTECT Act (the ``Feeney Amendment'') represents the
most dramatic change to federal sentencing law since passage
of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. It threatens to deprive
judges of discretion to impose individualized sentences and
transform the federal sentencing guidelines into a near-
mandatory minimum sentencing systems. As with mandatory
sentences, Title IV will increase unwarranted sentencing
disparities and disproportionate sentences, and erode public
confidence in our federal justice system.
No reliable evidence was offered to justify this
curtailment of judicial discretion. On the contrary,
statistics indicate that the overwhelming majority of
sentences, other than those requested by the government to
reward defendants for assisting in the prosecution of others,
are within the range specified by the sentencing guidelines.
Significantly, nearly 80 percent of all downward departures
are requested by the government to reward assistance to the
government or to manage the high volume of immigration cases
in certain border districts.
These statistics solidly discredit title IV's most
disastrous provision--Section 401(m), which orders the
Sentencing Commission to amend the guidelines so as to
substantially reduce the number of departures. The JUDGES Act
repeals that provision in favor of a neutral study of
departures by the Sentencing Commission.
In carefully considering and enacting the Sentencing Reform
Act of 1984 and eventually approving the Sentencing
Guidelines, Congress struck a careful balance between
sentencing uniformity and judicial discretion. Title IV of
the PROTECT Act upsets this balance without justification and
without due consideration for the opposing views of the
federal judiciary, the Sentencing Commission, the bar and
many diverse groups from the left and right.
We appreciate your leadership in this area, and we look
forward to working with you in support of the JUDGES Act.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Legal
Aid and
[[Page S6713]]
Defender Association, National Association of Federal
Defenders, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the senior
Senator from Massachusetts and Senators Feingold and Lautenberg in
introducing the Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in
Sentencing Act of 2003, or the JUDGES Act. This bill will restore
judicial discretion in Federal criminal sentencing, a responsibility
that was all but stripped away in controversial, extraneous provisions
that were added to the AMBER Alert law enacted last month.
I was deeply disappointed when the Republicans took the bipartisan,
non-controversial AMBER Alert bill and added numerous unrelated and
ill-considered provisions. One set of provisions, collectively called
the Feeney Amendment, blithely overturned the basic structure of the
carefully crafted sentencing guideline system without any serious
process in either the House or the Senate, and over the strong
objections of the Nation's most senior jurists. Speaking about the
original Feeney Amendment, the Chief Justice of the United States
wrote: ``This legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the
basic structure of the sentencing system and would seriously impair the
ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' I commend
Senator Kennedy for trying to repair the harm done in the Feeney
Amendment by introducing the JUDGES Act today.
Rather than directly address important measures to protect our
children, the AMBER Alert conference committee effectively rewrote the
criminal code on the back of an envelope. First, the final language
established one set of sentencing rules for child pornographers and a
more flexible set of sentencing rules for other Federal defendants,
including terrorists, murderers, mobsters, civil rights violators, and
white collar criminals. No one here believes that sex offenders deserve
anything less than harsh sentences, but I cannot understand why we
would treat the terrorists better.
Second, the conference report overturned a unanimous Supreme Court
decision, Koon v. United States, by establishing a new standard of
appellate review in all departure cases. This provision, like so many
others in the Feeney Amendment, is not limited to cases involving
children. The Court in Koon interpreted the departure standard in a way
that limited departures but left some room for judicial discretion. By
contrast, the enacted provision appears to require appellate courts to
consider the merits of a departure before it can decide what standard
of review to apply to the merits. This sloppy drafted, circular
provision is likely to tie up the courts in endless litigation,
draining already scarce judicial resources, and costing the taxpayers
money.
In addition, the Feeney Amendment effectively created a ``black
list'' of judges that stray from the draconian mandates of the new law.
The enacted amendment attempt to intimate the Federal judiciary by
compiling a list of all judges who impose sentences that the Justice
Department does not like. Again, this provision is not limited to
crimes against children, but applies in any type of criminal case. It
takes a sledge hammer to the concept of separation of powers.
In justifying this assault on Federal judges, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle claimed that there was a ``crisis'' of downward
departures in sentencing. In fact, downward departure rates are well
below the range contemplated by Congress when it authorized the
Sentencing Guidelines, except for departures requested by the
government. The overwhelming majority of downward departures are
requested by federal prosecutors to reward cooperation by defendants or
to manage the high volume of immigration cases in certain border
districts. When the government does not like a specific downward
departure, it can appeal that decision, and it often wins--
approximately 80 percent of such appeals are successful. The Feeney
Amendment, forced through Congress with virtually no debate, was a
solution in search of a problem.
The legislation that I join Senator Kennedy in introducing today will
repeal those provisions of the Feeney Amendment that veered from the
underlying purpose of the AMBER Alert bill. Specifically, it will annul
those sections that do not specifically involve crimes against children
or sex crimes, effectively reversing the Feeney Amendment's attack on
judicial discretion.
The JUDGES Act will provide accurate and complete information on the
incidence of downward departures in sentencing--a set of data that we
were denied when the Feeney Amendment was adopted in the AMBER
conference. This bill directs the Sentencing Commission to conduct a
comprehensive study on sentencing departures and report to Congress
within 180 days. This is the type of review Chief Justice Rehnquist
called for in his letter opposing the original Feeney language. He
urged the Congress to engage in a ``thorough and dispassionate
inquiry'' before changes were made to the Federal sentencing structure.
That request was dismissed by supporters of the Feeney Amendment, but
still deserves full consideration by the Congress.
Finally, the JUDGES Act will reverse a provision that goes beyond the
Feeney Amendment, having been added to the AMBER Alert bill during the
conference committee's one meeting. This provision limits the number of
Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. I, for one,
believe that judges are extremely valuable members of the Commission.
They bring years of highly relevant experience, not to mention reasoned
judgment, to the table. The Republicans apparently believe that their
expertise is of limited value.
The JUDGES Act is a reasoned correction to the far-reaching
provisions enacted in the Feeney Amendment. It will restore the
integrity of the Federal sentencing system by allowing judges to impose
just and responsible sentences. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1087. A bill to provide for uterine fibroid research and
education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uterine Fibroid
Research and Education Act. This bill expands and coordinates research
on uterine fibroids at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and
creates an education campaign to make sure women and their doctors have
the facts they need about this painful, chronic condition. I want to
thank Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for introducing this
legislation in the House of Representatives and Senator Clinton for
joining me as an original cosponsor.
Uterine fibroids are a major health issue for American women. Three
quarters of all reproductive age women, and an even greater number of
African American women, have uterine fibroids. Although many women with
fibroids have few or no symptoms, it is estimated that a quarter of all
women in their thirties and forties seek medical care for the abnormal
or heavy bleeding, pain, infertility, or miscarriage that uterine
fibroids cause.
Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids, and
few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them.
Right now, hysterectomy--the surgical removal of the uterus--is the
most common treatment for uterine fibroids. More than 200,000 women
undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat their uterine fibroids, which
requires a six week recovery, has a 20 to 40 percent risk of
complications, and means a women can no longer bear children. Less
invasive treatment options, like drug regimes or fibroid embolyzation,
are promising, but many have not undergone the rigorous testing that
women expect. In fact, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
at the Department of Health and Human Services found ``a remarkable
lack of high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most
interventions for symptomatic fibroids.''
Women deserve better. That's why I am introducing the uterine Fibroid
Research and Education Act--to find new and better ways to treat or
even cure uterine fibroids.
This bill does three things. First, it expands research at the
National Institutes of Health, NIH, by doubling funding for uterine
fibroids every year for the next five years. Despite a budget of
[[Page S6714]]
over $27 billion, NIH spent just $5 million on uterine fibroids
research in 2002. This legislation authorizes $50 million over five
years to provide the investment needed to jumpstart basic research and
lay the groundwork to find a cure.
This additional funding will help researchers find out why so many
women get uterine fibroids, why African American women are
disproportionately affected, what tests women can take to prevent
uterine fibroids, and what are the best ways to treat them.
Second, this legislation coordinates research on uterine fibroids
through the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. More than a
decade ago, I fought to create this Office at NIH to give women a seat
at the table when decisions were made about funding priorities. This
bill directs this Office to lead the Federal Government's research
effort on uterine fibroids. A coordinated research effort is needed to
make the best use of limited resources and to give women a one-stop
shop to find out what the Federal Government is doing to combat uterine
fibroids.
Finally, this bill creates education campaigns for patients and
health care providers. According to a 1999 survey conducted by the
Society for Women's Health Research, as many as one-third of women who
have hysterectomies do so without discussing potential alternatives
with their doctors. This bill will make sure women can count on their
doctors for information about the best possible treatment for uterine
fibroids. It will also give women the facts they need to make good
health care decisions and take control of their health.
Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to make sure
women don't get left out or left behind when it comes to their health.
From women's inclusion in clinical trials to quality standards for
mammograms, I have led the way to make sure women's health needs are
treated fairly and taken seriously. This legislation builds on these
past successes to address this silent epidemic among American women.
The Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act is supported by the
National Uterine Fibroid Foundation, the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Medical Association, the
American Nurses Association, the Feminist Majority Foundation, the
Center for Uterine Fibroids at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the
National Urban League,, Delta Sigma Theta, and the Society for Women's
Health Research. I look forward to working with these advocates and my
colleagues to get this bill signed into law.
______
By Mrs. By Mrs. BOXER.
S. 1088. A bill to enhance penalties for fraud in connection with
identification documents that facilitates an act of domestic terrorism;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to
increase penalties for terrorists using false identification.
This legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress. It mandates
prison time for anyone who produces, transfers, possesses, or uses a
fake ID in connection with terrorism. Currently, in Federal law, there
is no mandatory imprisonment for the production, transfer, possession,
or use of a fake ID. This is true under any circumstances, even those
involving terrorist acts. This, to me, seems wrong. If an individual at
any time facilitates an act of terrorism by providing someone with a
fake ID, making a fake ID, possessing a fake ID, or using that fake ID,
that person should go to jail. Period. My bill make sure that principle
is reflected in Federal law.
Second, my bill closes the loophole that provides enhanced penalties
for fake IDs used in connection with acts of international terrorism,
but not domestic terrorism. My bill makes sure that fake ID offenses
related to domestic terrorism get the same enhanced punishment as those
relating to international terrorism.
______
By Mr. ENSIGN:
S. 1089. A bill to encourage multilateral cooperation and authorize a
program of assistance to facilitate a peaceful transition in Cuba, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. ENSIGN: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
my bill, the ``Cuba Transition Act of 2003,'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1089
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 ``Cuba Transition Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Cuban people are seeking change in their country,
including through the Varela Project, Concilio Cubano,
independent journalist activity, and other civil society
initiatives.
(2) Civil society groups and independent, self-employed
Cuban citizens will be essential to the consolidation of a
genuine and effective transition to democracy from an
authoritarian, communist government in Cuba, and therefore
merit increased international assistance.
(3) The people of the United States support a policy of
proactively helping the Cuban people to establish a
democratic system of government, including supporting Cuban
citizen efforts to prepare for transition to a better and
more prosperous future.
(4) Without profound political and economic changes, Cuba
will not meet the criteria for participation in the Summit of
the Americas process.
(5) The Inter-American Democratic Charter adopted by the
General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS)
provides both guidance and mechanisms for response by OAS
members to the governmental transition in Cuba and that
country's eventual reintegration into the inter-American
system.
(6) United States Government support of pro-democracy
elements in Cuba and planning for the transition in Cuba is
essential for the identification of resources and mechanisms
that can be made available immediately in response to
profound political and economic changes on the island.
(7) Consultations with democratic development institutions
and international development agencies regarding Cuba are a
critical element in the preparation of an effective
multilateral response to the transition in Cuba.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To support multilateral efforts by the countries of the
Western Hemisphere in planning for a transition of the
government in Cuba and the return of that country to the
Western Hemisphere community of democracies.
(2) To encourage the development of an international group
to coordinate multilateral planning to a transition of the
government in Cuba.
(3) To authorize funding for programs to assist the Cuban
people and independent nongovernmental organizations in Cuba
in preparing the groundwork for a peaceful transition of
government in Cuba.
(4) To provide the President with funding to implement
assistance programs essential to the development of a
democratic government in Cuba.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Democratically elected government in cuba.--The term
``democratically elected government in Cuba'' has the meaning
given the term in section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C.
6023).
(2) Transition government in cuba.--The term ``transition
government in Cuba'' has the meaning given the term in
section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
(LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6023).
SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF COORDINATOR FOR CUBA TRANSITION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall designate,
within the Department of State, a coordinator who shall be
responsible for--
(1) designing an overall strategy to coordinate
preparations for, and a response to, a transition in Cuba;
(2) coordinating assistance provided to the Cuban people in
preparation for a transition in Cuba;
(3) coordinating strategic support for the consolidation of
a political and economic transition in Cuba;
(4) ensuring program and policy coordination among agencies
of the United States Government in carrying out the policies
set forth in this Act; and
(5) pursuing coordination with other countries and
international organizations, including international
financial institutions, with respect to assisting a
transition in Cuba.
(b) Rank and Status of the Transition Coordinator.--The
coordinator designated in subsection (a) shall have the rank
and status of ambassador.
SEC. 6. MULTILATERAL INITIATIVES RELATED TO CUBA.
The Secretary of State is authorized to designate up to
$5,000,000 of total amounts made available for contributions
to international organizations to be provided to the
Organization of American States for--
[[Page S6715]]
(1) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights activities
relating to the situation of human rights in Cuba;
(2) the funding of an OAS emergency fund for the deployment
of human rights observers, election support, and election
observation in Cuba as described in section 109(b) of the
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of
1996 (22 U.S.C. 6039(b)(1)); and
(3) scholarships for Cuban students attending colleges,
universities, or other educational programs in member states
of the OAS.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Sense of Congress Regarding Consultation With Western
Hemisphere.--It is the sense of Congress that the President
should begin consultation, as appropriate, with governments
of other Western Hemisphere countries regarding a transition
in Cuba.
(b) Sense of Congress Regarding Other Consultations.--It is
the sense of Congress that the President should begin
consultations with appropriate international partners and
governments regarding a multilateral diplomatic and financial
support program for response to a transition in Cuba.
SEC. 8. ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE IN
PREPARATION FOR A TRANSITION IN CUBA.
(a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law other than section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1) and comparable notification
requirements contained in any Act making appropriations for
foreign operations, export financing, and related programs,
the President is authorized to furnish an amount not to
exceed $15,000,000 in assistance and provide other support
for individuals and independent nongovernmental organizations
to support democracy-building efforts for Cuba, including--
(1) political prisoners and members of their families;
(2) persons persecuted or harassed for dissident
activities;
(3) independent libraries;
(4) independent workers' rights activists;
(5) independent agricultural cooperatives;
(6) independent associations of self-employed Cubans;
(7) independent journalists;
(8) independent youth organizations;
(9) independent environmental groups;
(10) independent economists, medical doctors, and other
professionals;
(11) in establishing and maintaining an information and
resources center to be in the United States interests section
in Havana, Cuba;
(12) prodemocracy programs of the National Endowment for
Democracy that are related to Cuba;
(13) nongovernmental programs to facilitate access to the
Internet, subject to section 102(g) of the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C.
6032(g));
(14) nongovernmental charitable programs that provide
nutrition and basic medical care to persons most at risk,
including children and elderly persons; and
(15) nongovernmental charitable programs to reintegrate
into civilian life persons who have abandoned, resigned, or
been expelled from the Cuban armed forces for ideological
reasons.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Independent nongovernmental organization.--The term
``independent nongovernmental organization'' means an
organization that the Secretary of State determines, not less
than 15 days before any obligation of funds to the
organization, is a charitable or nonprofit nongovernmental
organization that is not an agency or instrumentality of the
Cuban Government.
(2) Eligible cuban recipients.--The term ``eligible Cuban
recipients'' is limited to any Cuban national in Cuba,
including political prisoners and their families, who are not
officials of the Cuban Government or of the ruling political
party in Cuba, as defined in section 4(10) of the Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22
U.S.C. 6023(10)).
SEC. 9. SUPPORT FOR A TRANSITION GOVERNMENT IN CUBA.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to funds
otherwise available for such purposes, there are authorized
to be appropriated $30,000,000 to the President to establish
a fund to provide assistance to a transition government in
Cuba as defined in section 205 of the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C.
6023).
(b) Designation of Fund.--The fund authorized in subsection
(a) shall be known as the ``Fund for a Free Cuba''.
(c) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until
expended.
____________________