[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 82 (Thursday, June 5, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7478-S7496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 1190. A bill to expand and enhance postbaccalaureate opportunities 
at Hispanic-serving institutions, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN: Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to introduce the Next Generation 
Hispanic-Serving Institution Act. This bill will strengthen provisions 
in Title V of the Higher Education Act, HEA, by providing our Hispanic-
Serving Institutions with both graduate opportunities and reductions in 
regulatory barriers.
  According to the 2000 census Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the 
American population. Currently Hispanics constitute 10 percent of the 
college enrollment. By 2050 the Hispanic population will grow to 25 
percent. It is in our national interest to ensure that this population 
is well educated so that they will be ready to take their place as 
professionals, scientists, inventors, and well-informed citizens.
  Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, serve students of all 
backgrounds and ethnicities in 13 States. Colleges and universities 
become eligible for HSI status if at least 50 percent of their student 
population receives need-based financial assistance, 25 percent is 
Hispanic, and 50 percent of their Hispanic population is low-income. It 
is at these HSIs that the largest growth in advanced degrees awarded to 
Hispanics is occurring. Between 1991 and 2000 the number of Hispanic 
students earning master's degrees at HSIs grew 136 percent and the 
number of receiving doctoral degrees grew by 85 percent. Currently over 
25 percent of the Hispanics who obtained these degrees did so at HSIs. 
As a nation, we need to expand the capacity of Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions, support their undergraduate programs, and encourage them 
to offer quality graduate and professional degree programs.
  The Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institution Act will strengthen 
our Hispanic-Serving Institutions by: Establishing a competitive grant 
program for HSIs to support their masters and doctoral degree programs. 
Eliminating the current requirement for HSIs to show that 50 percent of 
their Hispanic population is low-income. This requirement is difficult 
for the institutions to meet because they cannot collect the necessary 
student data. Eliminating the 2-year wait-out period between HSI grants 
allowing continuous funding of existing programs. Adding, as an 
authorized activity, programs that support student transfers from 2-
year to 4-year institutions. Raising the funding for the Title V HSI 
grant program to $175,000,000. Allocating $125,000,000 for a new grant 
program to support HSI masters and doctoral programs.
  The State of New Mexico houses 19 HSIs within its border. The New 
Mexico HSIs serve the entire State and their student populations are 
very diverse. Over the years these 19 institutions have worked 
diligently to educate and support all students. They have graduated 
outstanding teachers, scientists, and other professionals. The Next 
Generation Hispanic-Serving Institution Act supports the valuable work 
that these and all other HSIs are currently doing and gives them new 
resources they need to expand their offerings.

  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and 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. 1190

       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 ``Next Generation Hispanic 
     Serving Institutions Act''.

    TITLE I--GRADUATE OPPORTUNITIES AT HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS

     SEC. 101. POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC 
                   AMERICANS.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--Title V of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part B as part C;

[[Page S7479]]

       (2) by redesignating sections 511 through 518 as sections 
     521 through 528, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after section 505 the following:

   ``PART B--PROMOTING POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC 
                               AMERICANS

     ``SEC. 511. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) According to the United States Census, by the year 
     2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin.
       ``(2) Despite the dramatic increase in the Hispanic 
     population in the United States, the National Center for 
     Education Statistics reported that in 1999, Hispanics 
     accounted for only 4 percent of the master's degrees, 3 
     percent of the doctor's degrees, and 5 percent of first-
     professional degrees awarded in the United States.
       ``(3) Although Hispanics constitute 10 percent of the 
     college enrollment in the United States, they comprise only 3 
     percent of instructional faculty in college and universities.
       ``(4) The future capacity for research and advanced study 
     in the United States will require increasing the number of 
     Hispanics pursuing postbaccalaureate studies.
       ``(5) Hispanic-serving institutions are leading the Nation 
     in increasing the number of Hispanics attaining graduate and 
     professional degrees.
       ``(6) Among Hispanics who received master's degrees in 
     1999-2000, 25 percent earned them at Hispanic-serving 
     institutions.
       ``(7) Between 1991 and 2000, the number of Hispanic 
     students earning master's degrees at Hispanic-serving 
     institutions grew 136 percent, the number receiving doctor's 
     degrees grew by 85 percent, and the number earning first-
     professional degrees grew by 47 percent.
       ``(8) It is in the National interest to expand the capacity 
     of Hispanic-serving institutions to offer graduate and 
     professional degree programs.
       ``(9) Research is a key element in graduate education and 
     undergraduate preparation, particularly in science and 
     technology, and Congress desires to strengthen the role of 
     research at Hispanic serving-institutions. University 
     research, whether performed directly or through a 
     university's nonprofit research institute or foundation, is 
     considered an integral part of the institution and mission of 
     the university.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are--
       ``(1) to expand postbaccalaureate educational opportunities 
     for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic 
     students; and
       ``(2) to expand and enhance the postbaccalaureate academic 
     offerings of high quality that are educating the majority of 
     Hispanic college students and helping large numbers of 
     Hispanic students and low-income individuals complete 
     postsecondary degrees.

     ``SEC. 512. PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--Subject to the availability of 
     funds appropriated to carry out this part, the Secretary 
     shall award competitive grants to eligible institutions.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--For the purposes of this part, an 
     `eligible institution' means an institution of higher 
     education that--
       ``(1) is a Hispanic-serving institution (as defined under 
     section 502); and
       ``(2) offers a postbaccalaureate certificate or degree 
     granting program.

     ``SEC. 513. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

       ``Grants awarded under this part shall be used for 1 or 
     more of the following activities:
       ``(1) Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or 
     laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including 
     instructional and research purposes.
       ``(2) Construction, maintenance, renovation, and 
     improvement in classroom, library, laboratory, and other 
     instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of 
     telecommunications technology equipment or services.
       ``(3) Purchase of library books, periodicals, technical and 
     other scientific journals, microfilm, microfiche, and other 
     educational materials, including telecommunications program 
     materials.
       ``(4) Support for needy postbaccalaureate students 
     including outreach, academic support services, mentoring, 
     scholarships, fellowships, and other financial assistance to 
     permit the enrollment of such students in postbaccalaureate 
     certificate and degree granting programs.
       ``(5) Support of faculty exchanges, faculty development, 
     faculty research, curriculum development, and academic 
     instruction.
       ``(6) Creating or improving facilities for Internet or 
     other distance learning academic instruction capabilities, 
     including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology 
     equipment or services.
       ``(7) Collaboration with other institutions of higher 
     education to expand postbaccalaureate certificate and degree 
     offerings.
       ``(8) Other activities proposed in the application 
     submitted pursuant to section 514 that--
       ``(A) contribute to carrying out the purposes of this part; 
     and
       ``(B) are approved by the Secretary as part of the review 
     and acceptance of such application.

     ``SEC. 514. APPLICATION AND DURATION.

       ``(a) Application.--Any eligible institution may apply for 
     a grant under this part by submitting an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as determined by 
     the Secretary. Such application shall demonstrate how the 
     grant funds will be used to improve postbaccalaureate 
     education opportunities for Hispanic and low-income students 
     and will lead to such students' greater financial 
     independence.
       ``(b) Duration.--Grants under this part shall be awarded 
     for a period not to exceed 5 years.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not award more than 
     1 grant under this part in any fiscal year to any Hispanic-
     serving institution.''.
       (b) Cooperative Arrangements.--Section 524 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)) 
     is amended by inserting ``and section 513'' after ``section 
     503''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 528(a) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (as redesignated by subsection 
     (a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Authorizations.--
       ``(1) Part a.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part A of this title $175,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2005 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(2) Part b.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part B of this title $125,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2005 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--Title V of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 502--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii), by striking ``section 
     512(b)'' and inserting ``section 522(b)''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``section 512(a)'' 
     and inserting ``section 522(a)'';
       (2) in section 521(c)(6) (as redesignated by subsection 
     (a)(2)), by striking ``section 516'' and inserting ``section 
     526''; and
       (3) in section 526 (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)), 
     by striking ``section 518'' and inserting ``section 528''.

      TITLE II--REDUCING REGULATORY BARRIERS FOR HISPANIC-SERVING 
                              INSTITUTIONS

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 502(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1101a(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (2) by striking paragraph (7).

     SEC. 202. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

       Section 503(b)(7) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1101b(b)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) Articulation agreements and student support programs 
     designed to facilitate the transfer from 2-year to 4-year 
     institutions.''.

     SEC. 203. ELIMINATION OF WAIT-OUT PERIOD.

       Section 504(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1101c(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Award Period.--The Secretary may award a grant to a 
     Hispanic-serving institution under this title for 5 years.''.

     SEC. 204. APPLICATION PRIORITY.

       Section 521(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as 
     redesignated by section 101(a)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``(from funds other than funds provided under this title)''.
                                 ______
                                 

                             By Mr. LEAHY:

  S. 1191. A bill to restore Federal remedies for infringements of 
intellectual property by States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in June 1999, the United States Supreme 
Court issued a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with 
respect to intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid v. 
College Savings Bank and its companion case, College Savings Bank v. 
Florida Prepaid. The Court ruled in these cases that States and their 
institutions cannot be held liable for damages for patent infringement 
and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even 
though they can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for 
themselves.
  Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the 
same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the 
Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, 
unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, 
copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.
  I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the 
Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.
  First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal 
intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot 
tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual 
property system get legal

[[Page S7480]]

protection but need not adhere to the law themselves. If we truly 
believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate a situation where one 
class of market participants have to play by the rules and others do 
not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a floor statement that 
was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid decisions, they ``leave us 
with an absurd and untenable state of affairs,'' where ``States will 
enjoy an enormous advantage over their private sector competitors.''
  The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid 
decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of 
Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to-
four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' 
the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation 
with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In 
doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State 
sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of 
the Constitution.
  Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; 
but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away 
at the legitimate constitutional authority of the federal government. 
At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We 
are faced with a choice. We can respond--in a careful and measured 
way--by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that 
is crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, 
abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, 
and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.
  About four months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I 
introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual 
Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore 
Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by 
states. I have continued to refine this legislation over the years, and 
in February 2002, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held the 
Committee's first hearing on the issue of sovereign immunity and the 
protection of intellectual property.

  Today, I am pleased to be introducing the Intellectual Property 
Protection Restoration Act of 2003, which builds on my earlier 
proposals and on the helpful comments I have received on those 
proposals from legal experts across the country. I am proud to have the 
House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Smith 
and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill.
  This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that 
the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual 
property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re-
engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and 
intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the 
Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has 
earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the 
endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American 
Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, 
the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners 
Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion 
Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of 
America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.
  In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates 
reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in 
intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. 
States that choose not to waive their immunity within two years after 
enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of 
the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties 
that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for 
infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived 
their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.
  This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach 
conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property 
protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as 
Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of federal funds 
under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach 
conditions to the federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny 
the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or 
proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full 
protection for your federal intellectual property rights, you must 
respect those of others.
  I am encouraged by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nevada 
Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which, although very narrow, 
suggests that certain Justices may be starting to realize that the 
Court has gone too far in sacrificing ordinary people's rights at the 
altar of sovereign immunity. By upholding the Family and Medical Leave 
Act as applied to the States, the Hibbs case also suggests that a very 
carefully crafted law, which simply does what is necessary to protect 
important rights, will be upheld.
  I hope we can all agree on the need to protect the rights of 
intellectual property owners. A recent GAO study confirmed that, as the 
law now stands, owners of intellectual property have few or no 
alternatives or remedies available against State infringers--just a 
series of dead ends.
  We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign 
trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property 
becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual 
property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the 
international ramifications here. American trading interests have been 
well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective 
intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other 
international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole 
in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has 
created.
  Senator Brownback made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing on 
February 27, 2002. He said, ``When states assert sovereign immunity for 
the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages 
the credibility of the United States internationally, and could 
possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any 
decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights 
around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our 
position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, 
information technology, and biotechnology.''
  The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores 
protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, 
under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping 
legislation in the early 1990s, but were thwarted by the Supreme 
Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation 
without further delay.
  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. 1191

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in this Act to the Trademark 
     Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks 
     used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain 
     international conventions, and for other purposes'', approved 
     July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) help eliminate the unfair commercial advantage that 
     States and their instrumentalities now hold in the Federal 
     intellectual property system because of their ability to 
     obtain protection under the United States patent, copyright, 
     and trademark laws while remaining exempt from liability for 
     infringing the rights of others;
       (2) promote technological innovation and artistic creation 
     in furtherance of the policies underlying Federal laws and 
     international treaties relating to intellectual property;
       (3) reaffirm the availability of prospective relief against 
     State officials who are violating or who threaten to violate 
     Federal intellectual property laws; and
       (4) abrogate State sovereign immunity in cases where States 
     or their instrumentalities, officers, or employees violate 
     the

[[Page S7481]]

     United States Constitution by infringing Federal intellectual 
     property.

     SEC. 3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REMEDIES EQUALIZATION.

       (a) Amendment to Patent Law.--Section 287 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d)(1) No remedies under section 284 or 289 shall be 
     awarded in any civil action brought under this title for 
     infringement of a patent issued on or after January 1, 2004, 
     if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any time the 
     legal or beneficial owner of such patent, except upon proof 
     that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the infringement commenced or 
     January 1, 2006, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to a patent if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2004; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the patent, and, at the time of the purchase, 
     did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that 
     a State or State instrumentality was once the legal or 
     beneficial owner of the patent.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2006, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2006, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Amendment to Copyright Law.--Section 504 of title 17, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Remedies in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) No remedies under this section shall be awarded in 
     any civil action brought under this title for infringement of 
     an exclusive right in a work created on or after January 1, 
     2004, if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any 
     time the legal or beneficial owner of such right, except upon 
     proof that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the infringement commenced or 
     January 1, 2006, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to an exclusive right if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2004; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the exclusive right, and, at the time of the 
     purchase, did not know and was reasonably without cause to 
     believe that a State or State instrumentality was once the 
     legal or beneficial owner of the right.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2006, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2006, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (c) Amendment to Trademark Law.--Section 35 of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Remedies in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) No remedies under this section shall be awarded in 
     any civil action arising under this Act for a violation of 
     any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the 
     Patent and Trademark Office on or after January 1, 2004, or 
     any right of the owner of a mark first used in commerce on or 
     after January 1, 2004, if a State or State instrumentality is 
     or was at any time the legal or beneficial owner of such 
     right, except upon proof that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the violation commenced or 
     January 1, 2006, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to a right of the registrant or owner 
     of a mark if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2004; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the right, and, at the time of the purchase, did 
     not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that a 
     State or State instrumentality was once the legal or 
     beneficial owner of the right.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2006, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2006, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Amendments to patent law.--Section 296 of title 35, 
     United States Code, and the item relating to section 296 in 
     the table of sections for chapter 29 of such title, are 
     repealed.
       (2) Amendments to copyright law.--Section 511 of title 17, 
     United States Code, and the item relating to section 511 in 
     the table of sections for chapter 5 of such title, are 
     repealed.
       (3) Amendments to trademark law.--Section 40 of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1122) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b);
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``or (b)'' after 
     ``subsection (a)''; and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR STATUTORY 
                   VIOLATIONS BY STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

       In any action against an officer or employee of a State or 
     State instrumentality for any violation of any of the 
     provisions of title 17 or 35, United States Code, the 
     Trademark Act of 1946, or the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), remedies shall be available against the 
     officer or employee in the same manner and to the same extent 
     as such remedies are available in an action against a private 
     individual under like circumstances. Such remedies may 
     include monetary damages assessed against the officer or 
     employee, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs, attorney 
     fees, and destruction of infringing articles, as provided 
     under the applicable Federal statute.

     SEC. 5. LIABILITY OF STATES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS 
                   INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

       (a) Due Process Violations.--Any State or State 
     instrumentality that violates any of the exclusive rights of 
     a patent owner under title 35, United States Code, of a 
     copyright owner, author, or owner of a mask work or original 
     design under title 17, United States Code, of an owner or 
     registrant of a mark used in commerce or registered in the 
     Patent and Trademark Office under the Trademark Act of 1946, 
     or of an owner of a protected plant variety under the Plant 
     Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in a manner 
     that deprives any person of property in violation of the 
     fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, shall 
     be liable to the party injured in a civil action in Federal 
     court for compensation for the harm caused by such violation.
       (b) Takings Violations.--
       (1) In general.--Any State or State instrumentality that 
     violates any of the exclusive rights of a patent owner under 
     title 35, United States Code, of a copyright owner, author, 
     or owner of a mask work or original design under title 17, 
     United States Code, of an owner or registrant of a mark used 
     in commerce or registered in the Patent and Trademark Office 
     under the Trademark Act of 1946, or of an owner of a 
     protected plant variety under the Plant Variety Protection 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in a manner that takes property 
     in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the 
     United States Constitution, shall be liable to the party 
     injured in a civil action in Federal court for compensation 
     for the harm caused by such violation.
       (2) Effect on other relief.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall prevent or affect the ability of a party to obtain 
     declaratory or injunctive relief under section 4 of this Act 
     or otherwise.
       (c) Compensation.--Compensation under subsection (a) or 
     (b)--
       (1) may include actual damages, profits, statutory damages, 
     interest, costs, expert witness fees, and attorney fees, as 
     set forth in the appropriate provisions of title 17 or 35, 
     United States Code, the Trademark Act of 1946, and the Plant 
     Variety Protection Act; and
       (2) may not include an award of treble or enhanced damages 
     under section 284 of title 35, United States Code, section 
     504(d) of title 17, United States Code, section 35(b) of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117 (b)), or section 124(b) 
     of the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2564(b)).
       (d) Burden of Proof.--In any action under subsection (a) or 
     (b)--
       (1) with respect to any matter that would have to be proved 
     if the action were an action for infringement brought under 
     the applicable Federal statute, the burden of proof shall be 
     the same as if the action were brought under such statute; 
     and
       (2) with respect to all other matters, including whether 
     the State provides an adequate remedy for any deprivation of 
     property proved by the injured party under subsection (a), 
     the burden of proof shall be upon the State or State 
     instrumentality.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to violations 
     that occur on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page S7482]]

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts shall have original 
     jurisdiction of any action arising under this Act under 
     section 1338 of title 28, United States Code.
       (b) Broad Construction.--This Act shall be construed in 
     favor of a broad protection of intellectual property, to the 
     maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution.
       (c) Severability.--If any provision of this Act or any 
     application of such provision to any person or circumstance 
     is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and 
     the application of the provision to any other person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 1192. A bill to establish a Consumer and Small Business Energy 
Commission to assess and provide recommendations regarding recent 
energy price spikes from the perspective of consumers and small 
businesses; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumer and 
Small Business Energy Commission Act. I am pleased to have the support 
of the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, in introducing this 
legislation. This legislation will allow us to better understand the 
causes of energy price spikes from the consumer and small business 
perspectives, and better address this pressing issue.
  The Consumer and Small Business Energy Commission Act would establish 
a Consumer and Small Business Energy Commission. The members would be 
appointed on a bipartisan basis by the Speaker and Minority Leader of 
the House and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well 
as the President. The Commission would be comprised of representatives 
of consumer groups, the energy industry, small businesses, and the 
Administration. The Commission will study the causes of energy price 
spikes and issue recommendations on how to avert price spikes in the 
future.
  Sine 1990, residential heating oil, residential natural gas, 
commercial natural gas, industrial natural gas, and gasoline have all 
had significantly fluctuating prices. Gasoline price spikes have become 
commonplace in the Midwest. Escalating home heating and cooling bills 
have crippled family budgets in the Midwest and Northeast. Farmers and 
industries dependent on natural gas for the production of fertilizer 
and other chemical products have also suffered economically. Most 
recently, natural gas prices have skyrocketed and gasoline prices have 
shown little sign of falling from the historic highs of the past few 
months.
  We need a comprehensive study of these problems. Some past studies 
have assessed the long-range supply and demand for energy product. The 
Federal Trade Commission studied gasoline price spikes in the Midwest, 
and Senator Levin has embarked on a series of hearings exploring 
gasoline pricing issues. Other studies have investigated narrow or 
specific abuses of market power in the energy industry, such as in 
California. The Consumer and Small Business Energy Commission will look 
at the entire picture, focusing on price fluctuations of all consumer 
energy products. The list of potential causes that need to be studied 
includes: insufficient inventories, supply disruptions, refinery 
capacity limits, insufficient infrastructure, possible regulation 
problems, flawed deregulation, excessive consumption, over-reliance on 
foreign supplies, insufficient investment in research and development 
of alternative sources, opportunistic behavior by energy companies, and 
abuse of market power.
  We need to give consumers and small businesses a voice. When 
consumers go to pay their grocery bills, or their tuition bills, or 
even their residential electricity bills in most states, and when small 
businesses go to pay for raw materials, prices are fairly predictable. 
But when they go to pay for their heating and cooling, natural gas, or 
gasoline, families and businesses face the frustrating reality of wild 
price swings.
  We need to bring consumers and small businesses to the table together 
with representatives of the energy industry and government. We need 
these groups to work collectively, and to consider the range of 
possible causes of energy price spikes.

  A measure very similar to this bill enjoyed strong, bipartisan 
support last year, and passed as an amendment to the Senate energy bill 
by a vote of 69-30. The minor changes to this bill include adding 
direct representation of small businesses to the Commission, expanding 
the participation of Administration representatives in the study phase, 
and establishing an Executive Committee to expedite the issuance of the 
final report, which will include recommendations.
  By enacting the Consumer and Small Business Energy Commission Act, we 
will be able to better understand the causes of energy price spikes and 
hopefully avert them in the future. I urge my colleagues to join me as 
a cosponsor of this important 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. 1192

       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 ``Consumer and Small Business 
     Energy Commission Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there have been several sharp increases since 1990 in 
     the price of electricity, gasoline, home heating oil, natural 
     gas, and propane in the United States;
       (2) recent examples of such increases include--
       (A) unusually high gasoline prices that are at least partly 
     attributable to global politics;
       (B) electricity price spikes during the California energy 
     crisis of 2001; and
       (C) the Midwest gasoline price spikes in spring 2001;
       (3) shifts in energy regulation, including the allowance of 
     greater flexibility in competition and trading, have affected 
     price stability and consumers in ways that are not fully 
     understood;
       (4) price spikes undermine the ability of low-income 
     families, the elderly, and small businesses (including 
     farmers and other agricultural producers) to afford essential 
     energy services and products;
       (5) energy price spikes can exacerbate a weak economy by 
     creating uncertainties that discourage investment, growth, 
     and other activities that contribute to a strong economy;
       (6) the Department of Energy has determined that the 
     economy would be likely to perform better with stable or 
     predictable energy prices;
       (7) price spikes can be caused by many factors, including 
     insufficient inventories, supply disruptions, refinery 
     capacity limits, insufficient infrastructure, over-regulation 
     or under-regulation, flawed deregulation, excessive 
     consumption, over-reliance on foreign supplies, insufficient 
     research and development of alternative energy sources, 
     opportunistic behavior by energy companies, and abuses of 
     market power;
       (8) consumers and small businesses have few options other 
     than to pay higher energy costs when prices spike, resulting 
     in reduced investment and slower economic growth and job 
     creation;
       (9) the effect of price spikes, and possible responses to 
     price spikes, on consumers and small businesses should be 
     examined; and
       (10) studies have examined price spikes of specific energy 
     products in specific contexts or for specific reasons, but no 
     study has examined price spikes comprehensively with a focus 
     on the impacts on consumers and small businesses.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer 
     and Small Business Energy Commission established by section 
     4(a).
       (2) Consumer energy product.--The term ``consumer energy 
     product'' means--
       (A) electricity;
       (B) gasoline;
       (C) home heating oil;
       (D) natural gas; and
       (E) propane.
       (3) Consumer group focusing on energy issues.--The term 
     ``consumer group focusing on energy issues'' means--
       (A) an organization that is a member of the National 
     Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates;
       (B) a nongovernmental organization representing the 
     interests of residential energy consumers; and
       (C) a nongovernmental organization that--
       (i) receives not more than \1/4\ of its funding from energy 
     industries; and
       (ii) represent the interests of energy consumers.
       (4) Energy consumer.--The term ``energy consumer'' means an 
     individual or small business that purchases 1 or more 
     consumer energy products.
       (5) Energy industry.--The term ``energy industry'' means 
     for-profit or not-for-profit entities involved in the 
     generation, selling, or buying of any energy-producing fuel 
     involved in the production or use of consumer energy 
     products.
       (6) Executive committee.--The term ``Executive Committee'' 
     means the executive committee of the Commission.
       (7) Small business.--The term ``small business'' has the 
     meaning given the term

[[Page S7483]]

     ``small business concern'' in section 3(a) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).

     SEC. 4. CONSUMER ENERGY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Consumer and Small Business Energy 
     Commission''.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be comprised of 20 
     members.
       (2) Appointments by the senate and house of 
     representatives.--The majority leader and minority leader of 
     the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of the House 
     of Representatives shall each appoint 4 members, of whom--
       (A) 2 shall represent consumer groups focusing on energy 
     issues;
       (B) 1 shall represent small businesses; and
       (C) 1 shall represent the energy industry.
       (3) Appointments by the president.--The President shall 
     appoint 1 member from each of--
       (A) the Energy Information Administration of the Department 
     of Energy;
       (B) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
       (C) the Federal Trade Commission; and
       (D) the Commodities Future Trading Commission.
       (4) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--The Commission shall hold the initial 
     meeting of the Commission not later than the earlier of--
       (1) the date that is 30 days after the date on which all 
     members of the Commission have been appointed; or
       (2) the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, regardless of whether all members have been 
     appointed.
       (e) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the 
     members of the Commission, excluding the members appointed 
     under subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of subsection (b)(3).
       (f) Executive Committee.--The Commission shall have an 
     executive committee comprised of all members of the 
     Commission except the members appointed under subparagraphs 
     (B), (C), and (D) of subsection (b)(3).
       (g) Information and Administrative Expenses.--The Federal 
     agencies specified in subsection (b)(3) shall provide the 
     Commission such information and pay such administrative 
     expenses as the Commission requires to carry out this 
     section, consistent with the requirements and guidelines of 
     the Federal Advisory Commission Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (h) Duties.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a nationwide 
     study of significant price spikes in major United States 
     consumer energy products since 1990.
       (B) Matters to be studied by the commission.--In conducting 
     the study, the Commission shall--
       (i) focus on the causes of the price spikes, including 
     insufficient inventories, supply disruptions, refinery 
     capacity limits, insufficient infrastructure, any over-
     regulation or under-regulation, flawed deregulation, 
     excessive consumption, over-reliance on foreign supplies, 
     insufficient research and development of alternative energy 
     sources, opportunistic behavior by energy companies, and 
     abuses of market power;
       (ii) examine the effects of price spikes on consumers and 
     small businesses;
       (iii) investigate market concentration, opportunities for 
     misuse of market power, and any other relevant market 
     failures; and
       (iv) consider--

       (I) proposals for administrative actions to mitigate price 
     spikes affecting consumers and small businesses;
       (II) proposals for legislative action; and
       (III) proposals for voluntary actions by energy consumers 
     and the energy industry.

       (2) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Executive Committee shall submit 
     to Congress a report that contains--
       (A) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of 
     the Commission; and
       (B) recommendations for legislation, administrative 
     actions, and voluntary actions by energy consumers and the 
     energy industry to protect consumers from future price spikes 
     in consumer energy products, including a recommendation on 
     whether energy consumers need an advocate on energy issues 
     within the Federal Government.
       (i) Termination.--
       (1) Definition of legislative day.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``legislative day'' means a day on which both Houses of 
     Congress are in session.
       (2) Date of termination.--The Commission shall terminate on 
     the date that is 30 legislative days after the date of 
     submission of the report under subsection (h)(2).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1193. A bill to provide for qualified withdrawals from the Capital 
Construction Fund for fishermen leaving the industry and for the 
rollover of Capital Construction Funds to individual retirement plans, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital 
Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2003. My friends and 
colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Murray, join me in introducing 
this important bill.
  In January of 2000, a fishery disaster was declared by the Secretary 
of Commerce for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Due to major 
declines in fish population, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council 
decreased groundfish catch quotas by 90 percent. Today, the groundfish 
fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest 
continues to face daunting challenges as a result of this disaster. 
Fishery income has dropped 55 percent and over a thousand fishers face 
bankruptcy. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has called for a 50 
percent reduction in fishing capacity as part of their strategic plan 
for the recovery of the fishery. This legislation supports this effort 
by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the 
groundfish fishers' transition away from fishing.
  The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 
amended 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177, has been a way for fishers to accumulate 
funds, free from taxes, for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing 
vessels. It was conceived at a time when the federal government wanted 
to help capitalize and expand American fishing fleets. The program was 
a success: it led to a larger U.S. fishing fleet. However, fish 
populations declined and the U.S. commercial fishing fleet is now over-
capitalized. The CCF's usefulness has not kept up with the times, and 
now it exacerbates problems facing U.S. fisheries, including the West 
Coast groundfish fishery.
  Now is the time to help fishers, who wish to do so, to leave the 
fleet.
  In Oregon, the amounts in CCF accounts range from $10,000 to over 
$200,000. This legislation changes current law to allow fishers to 
remove money from their CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels 
or upgrading current vessels, without losing up to 70 percent of their 
CCF funds in taxes and penalties. This legislation changes the CCF so 
fishers who want to opt out of fishing are not penalized for doing so.
  This bill takes a significant step towards helping fishermen and 
making the West Coast groundfish fishery and the commercial fishing 
industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of 
investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the 
Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled 
over into an IRA or other types of retirement accounts, or to be used 
for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity 
reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account 
holders. This bill will also encourage innovation and conservation by 
allowing fishers to use funds deposited in a CCF to develop or purchase 
new gear that reduces bycatch.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Grassley, Ms. 
        Cantwell, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1194. A bill to foster local collaborations which will ensure that 
resources are effectively and efficiently used within the criminal and 
juvenile justice systems; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators 
Domenici, Leahy, Grassley, and Cantwell, to introduce the ``Mentally 
Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003.'' This 
bipartisan measure would, among other things, create a program of 
planning and implementation grants for communities so they may offer 
more treatment and other services to mentally ill offenders. Under this 
bill, programs receiving grant funds would be operated collaboratively 
by both a criminal justice agency and a mental health agency.
  The mentally ill population poses a particularly difficult challenge 
for our criminal justice system. People afflicted with mental illness 
are incarcerated at significantly higher rates than the general 
population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, while only 
about five percent of the American population has a mental illness, 
about 16 percent of the State prison population has such an illness. 
The Los Angeles County Jail, for example,

[[Page S7484]]

typically has more mentally ill inmates than any hospital in the 
country.
  Unfortunately, however, the reality of our criminal justice system is 
that jails and prisons do not provide a therapeutic environment for the 
mentally ill and are unlikely to do so any time soon. Indeed, the 
mentally ill inmate often is preyed upon by other inmates or becomes 
even sicker in jail. Once released from jail or prison, many mentally 
ill people end up on the streets. With limited personal resources and 
little or no ability to handle their illness alone, they often commit 
further offenses resulting in their re-arrest and re-incarceration. 
This ``revolving door'' is costly and disruptive for all involved.
  Although these problems tend to manifest themselves primarily within 
the prison system, the root cause of our current situation is found in 
the mental health system and its failure to provide sufficient 
community-based treatment solutions. Accordingly, the solution will 
necessarily involve collaboration between the mental health system and 
criminal justice system. In fact, it also will require greater 
collaboration between the substance abuse treatment and mental health 
treatment communities, because many mentally ill offenders have a drug 
or alcohol problem in addition to their mental illness.
  The purpose of the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime 
Reduction Act'' is to foster exactly this type of collaboration at the 
Federal, State, and local levels. The bill provides incentives for the 
criminal justice, juvenile justice, mental health, and substance abuse 
treatment systems to work together at each level of government to 
establish a network of services for offenders with mental illness. The 
bill's approach is unique, in that it not only would promote public 
safety by helping curb the incidence of repeat offenders, but it also 
would promote public health, by ensuring that those with a serious 
mental illness are treated as soon as possible and as efficiently and 
effectively as possible.
  Among its major provisions, this legislation calls for the 
establishment of a new competitive grant program, which would be housed 
at the U.S. Department of Justice, but administered by the Attorney 
General with the active involvement of the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services. To ensure that collaboration occurs at the local level, 
the bill would require that two entities jointly submit a single grant 
application on behalf of a community.
  Applications demonstrating the greatest commitment to collaboration 
would receive priority for grant funds. If applicants can show that 
grant funds would be used to promote public health, as well as public 
safety, and if the program they propose would have the active 
participation of each joint applicant, and if their grant application 
has the support of both the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, then it would receive priority for funding.
  Additionally, the bill would permit grant funds to be used for a 
variety of purposes, each of which embodies the goal of collaboration. 
First, grant funds may be used to provide courts with more options, 
such as specialized dockets, for dealing with the non-violent offender 
who has a serious mental illness or a co-occurring mental illness and 
drug or alcohol problem. Second, grant funds could be used to enhance 
training of mental health and criminal justice system personnel, who 
must know how to deal appropriately with the mentally ill offender. 
Third, grant funds could be devoted to programs that divert the 
criminal justice system into treatment those non-violent offenders with 
severe and persistent mental illness. Finally, correctional facilities 
may use grant funds to promote the treatment of inmates and ease their 
transition back into the community upon release from jail or prison.
  In specifically authorizing grant funds to be used to promote more 
options for courts to deal with mentally ill offenders, this bill 
builds on legislation that I introduced two years ago with my colleague 
from Ohio, Congressman Ted Strickland. That measure, which became law, 
authorized $10 million per year for the establishment of more mental 
health courts. I have long supported mental health courts, which enable 
the criminal justice system to provide an individualized treatment 
solution for a mentally ill offender, while also requiring 
accountability of the offender. The legislation we are introducing 
today would make possible the creation or expansion of more mental 
health courts, and it also would promote the funding of treatment 
services that support such courts.
  In addition to making planning and implementation grants available to 
communities, the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction 
Act'' also calls for an Interagency Task Force to be established at the 
federal level. This Task Force would include the Attorney General and 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of 
Education, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Commissioner of 
Social Security. The Task Force would be charged with identifying new 
ways that federal departments can work together to reduce recidivism 
among mentally ill adults and juveniles.
  Finally, the bill would direct the Attorney General and Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to develop a list of ``best practices'' for 
criminal justice personnel to use when diverting mentally ill offenders 
from the criminal justice system.
  Ultimately, this is a good bill and one that is long overdue. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this important legislative measure.
  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. 1194

       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 ``Mentally Ill Offender 
     Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 16 
     percent of adults incarcerated in United States jails and 
     prisons have a mental illness.
       (2) According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention, approximately 20 percent of youth in 
     the juvenile justice system have serious mental health 
     problems, and a significant number have co-occurring mental 
     health and substance abuse disorders.
       (3) According to the National Alliance for the Mentally 
     Ill, up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious 
     mental illness will come into contact with the American 
     criminal justice system at some point in their lives.
       (4) According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention, over 150,000 juveniles who come into 
     contact with the juvenile justice system each year meet the 
     diagnostic criteria for at least 1 mental or emotional 
     disorder.
       (5) A significant proportion of adults with a serious 
     mental illness who are involved with the criminal justice 
     system are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness; and 
     many of these individuals are arrested and jailed for minor, 
     nonviolent offenses.
       (6) The majority of individuals with a mental illness or 
     emotional disorder who are involved in the criminal or 
     juvenile justice systems are responsive to medical and 
     psychological interventions that integrate treatment, 
     rehabilitation, and support services.
       (7) Collaborative programs between mental health, substance 
     abuse, and criminal or juvenile justice systems that ensure 
     the provision of services for those with mental illness or 
     co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders can 
     reduce the number of such individuals in adult and juvenile 
     corrections facilities, while providing improved public 
     safety.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to increase public safety by 
     facilitating collaboration among the criminal justice, 
     juvenile justice, mental health treatment, and substance 
     abuse systems. Such collaboration is needed to--
       (1) reduce rearrests among adult and juvenile offenders 
     with mental illness, or co-occurring mental illness and 
     substance abuse disorders;
       (2) provide courts, including existing and new mental 
     health courts, with appropriate mental health and substance 
     abuse treatment options;
       (3) maximize the use of alternatives to prosecution through 
     diversion in appropriate cases involving non-violent 
     offenders with mental illness;
       (4) promote adequate training for criminal justice system 
     personnel about mental illness and substance abuse disorders 
     and the appropriate responses to people with such illnesses;
       (5) promote adequate training for mental health treatment 
     personnel about criminal

[[Page S7485]]

     offenders with mental illness and the appropriate response to 
     such offenders in the criminal justice system;
       (6) promote communication between criminal justice or 
     juvenile justice personnel, mental health treatment 
     personnel, nonviolent offenders with mental illness, and 
     other support services such as housing, job placement, 
     community, and faith-based organizations; and
       (7) promote communication, collaboration, and 
     intergovernmental partnerships among municipal, county, and 
     State elected officials with respect to mentally ill 
     offenders.

     SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MENTAL HEALTH AND CRIMINAL 
                   JUSTICE COLLABORATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

       ``PART HH--ADULT AND JUVENILE COLLABORATION PROGRAM GRANTS

     ``SEC. 2991. ADULT AND JUVENILE COLLABORATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Applicant.--The term `applicant' means States, units 
     of local government, Indian tribes, and tribal organizations 
     that apply for a grant under this section.
       ``(2) Collaboration program.--The term `collaboration 
     program' means a program to promote public safety by ensuring 
     access to adequate mental health and other treatment services 
     for mentally ill adults or juveniles that is overseen 
     cooperatively by--
       ``(A) a criminal justice agency, a juvenile justice agency, 
     or a mental health court; and
       ``(B) a mental health agency.
       ``(3) Criminal or juvenile justice agency.--The term 
     `criminal or juvenile justice agency' means an agency of a 
     State or local government that is responsible for detection, 
     arrest, enforcement, prosecution, defense, adjudication, 
     incarceration, probation, or parole relating to the violation 
     of the criminal laws of that State or local government.
       ``(4) Diversion and alternative prosecution and 
     sentencing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The terms `diversion' and `alternative 
     prosecution and sentencing' mean the appropriate use of 
     effective mental health treatment alternatives to juvenile 
     justice or criminal justice system institutional placements 
     for preliminarily qualified offenders.
       ``(B) Appropriate use.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `appropriate use' includes the discretion of the judge or 
     supervising authority and the leveraging of justice sanctions 
     to encourage compliance with treatment.
       ``(5) Mental health agency.--The term `mental health 
     agency' means an agency of a State or local government that 
     is responsible for mental health services.
       ``(6) Mental health court.--The term `mental health court' 
     means a judicial program that meets the requirements of part 
     V of this title.
       ``(7) Mental illness.--The term `mental illness' means a 
     diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder--
       ``(A) of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria 
     within the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and 
     Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the 
     American Psychiatric Association; and
       ``(B) that has resulted in functional impairment that 
     substantially interferes with or limits 1 or more major life 
     activities.
       ``(8) Preliminarily qualified offender.--The term 
     `preliminarily qualified offender' means an adult or juvenile 
     who--
       ``(A)(i) previously or currently has been diagnosed by a 
     qualified mental health professional as having a mental 
     illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse 
     disorders; or
       ``(ii) manifests obvious signs of mental illness or co-
     occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders during 
     arrest or confinement or before any court; and
       ``(B) has faced or is facing criminal charges and is deemed 
     eligible by a designated pretrial screening and diversion 
     process, or by a magistrate or judge, on the ground that the 
     commission of the offense is the product of the person's 
     mental illness.
       ``(9) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Department of Health and Human Services.
       ``(10) Unit of local government.--The term `unit of local 
     government' means any city, county, township, town, borough, 
     parish, village, or other general purpose political 
     subdivision of a State, including a State court, local court, 
     or a governmental agency located within a city, county, 
     township, town, borough, parish, or village.
       ``(b) Planning and Implementation Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Secretary, may award nonrenewable grants to eligible 
     applicants to prepare a comprehensive plan for and implement 
     an adult or juvenile collaboration program, which targets 
     adults or juveniles with mental illness or co-occurring 
     mental illness and substance abuse disorders in order to 
     promote public safety and public health.
       ``(2) Purposes.--Grants awarded under this section shall be 
     used to create or expand--
       ``(A) mental health courts or other court-based programs 
     for preliminarily qualified offenders;
       ``(B) programs that offer specialized training to the 
     officers and employees of a criminal or juvenile justice 
     agency and mental health personnel in procedures for 
     identifying the symptoms of mental illness and co-occurring 
     mental illness and substance abuse disorders in order to 
     respond appropriately to individuals with such illnesses;
       ``(C) programs that support cooperative efforts by criminal 
     and juvenile justice agencies and mental health agencies to 
     promote public safety by offering mental health treatment 
     services and, where appropriate, substance abuse treatment 
     services for--
       ``(i) preliminarily qualified offenders with mental illness 
     or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; 
     or
       ``(ii) adult offenders with mental illness during periods 
     of incarceration, while under the supervision of a criminal 
     justice agency, or following release from correctional 
     facilities; and
       ``(D) programs that support intergovernmental cooperation 
     between State and local governments with respect to the 
     mentally ill offender.
       ``(3) Applications.--
       ``(A) In general.--To receive a planning grant or an 
     implementation grant, the joint applicants shall prepare and 
     submit a single application to the Attorney General at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Attorney General and the Secretary shall reasonably require. 
     An application under part V of this title may be made in 
     conjunction with an application under this section.
       ``(B) Combined planning and implementation grant 
     application.--The Attorney General and the Secretary shall 
     develop a procedure under which applicants may apply at the 
     same time and in a single application for a planning grant 
     and an implementation grant, with receipt of the 
     implementation grant conditioned on successful completion of 
     the activities funded by the planning grant.
       ``(4) Planning grants.--
       ``(A) Application.--The joint applicants may apply to the 
     Attorney General for a nonrenewable planning grant to develop 
     a collaboration program.
       ``(B) Contents.--The Attorney General and the Secretary may 
     not approve a planning grant unless the application for the 
     grant includes or provides, at a minimum, for a budget and a 
     budget justification, a description of the outcome measures 
     that will be used to measure the effectiveness of the program 
     in promoting public safety and public health, the activities 
     proposed (including the provision of substance abuse 
     treatment services, where appropriate) and a schedule for 
     completion of such activities, and the personnel necessary to 
     complete such activities.
       ``(C) Period of grant.--A planning grant shall be effective 
     for a period of 1 year, beginning on the first day of the 
     month in which the planning grant is made. Applicants may not 
     receive more than 1 such planning grant.
       ``(D) Amount.--The amount of a planning grant may not 
     exceed $75,000, except that the Attorney General may, for 
     good cause, approve a grant in a higher amount.
       ``(E) Collaboration set aside.--Up to 5 percent of all 
     planning funds shall be used to foster collaboration between 
     State and local governments in furtherance of the purposes 
     set forth in the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime 
     Reduction Act of 2003.
       ``(5) Implementation grants.--
       ``(A) Application.--Joint applicants that have prepared a 
     planning grant application may apply to the Attorney General 
     for approval of a nonrenewable implementation grant to 
     develop a collaboration program.
       ``(B) Collaboration.--To receive an implementation grant, 
     the joint applicants shall--
       ``(i) document that at least 1 criminal or juvenile justice 
     agency (which can include a mental health court) and 1 mental 
     health agency will participate in the administration of the 
     collaboration program;
       ``(ii) describe the responsibilities of each participating 
     agency, including how each agency will use grant resources to 
     jointly ensure that the provision of mental health treatment 
     services is integrated with the provision of substance abuse 
     treatment services, where appropriate;
       ``(iii) in the case of an application from a unit of local 
     government, document that a State mental health authority has 
     provided comment and review; and
       ``(iv) involve, to the extent practicable, in developing 
     the grant application--

       ``(I) individuals with mental illness or co-occurring 
     mental illness and substance abuse disorders; or
       ``(II) the families and advocates of such individuals under 
     subclause (I).

       ``(C) Content.--To be eligible for an implementation grant, 
     joint applicants shall comply with the following:
       ``(i) Definition of target population.--Applicants for an 
     implementation grant shall--

       ``(I) describe the population with mental illness or co-
     occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders that 
     is targeted for the collaboration program; and
       ``(II) develop guidelines that can be used by personnel of 
     a criminal or juvenile justice agency to identify individuals 
     with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and 
     substance abuse disorders.

       ``(ii) Services.--Applicants for an implementation grant 
     shall--

       ``(I) ensure that preliminarily qualified offenders who are 
     to receive treatment services under the collaboration program 
     will first receive individualized, needs-based assessments to 
     determine, plan, and coordinate the most appropriate services 
     for such individuals;

[[Page S7486]]

       ``(II) specify plans for making mental health treatment 
     services available and accessible to mentally ill offenders 
     at the time of their release from the criminal justice 
     system, including outside of normal business hours;
       ``(III) ensure that preliminarily qualified offenders 
     served by the collaboration program will have access to 
     effective and appropriate community-based mental health 
     services, or, where appropriate, integrated substance abuse 
     and mental health treatment services;
       ``(IV) make available, to the extent practicable, other 
     support services that will ensure the preliminarily qualified 
     offender's successful reintegration into the community (such 
     as housing, education, job placement, mentoring, and health 
     care and benefits, as well as the services of faith-based and 
     community organizations for mentally ill individuals served 
     by the collaboration program); and
       ``(V) include strategies to address developmental and 
     learning disabilities and problems arising from a documented 
     history of physical or sexual abuse.

       ``(D) Housing and job placement.--Recipients of an 
     implementation grant may use grant funds to assist mentally 
     ill offenders compliant with the program in seeking housing 
     or employment assistance.
       ``(E) Policies and procedures.--Applicants for an 
     implementation grant shall strive to ensure prompt access to 
     defense counsel by criminal defendants with mental illness 
     who are facing charges that would trigger a constitutional 
     right to counsel.
       ``(F) Financial.--Applicants for an implementation grant 
     shall--
       ``(i) explain the applicant's inability to fund the 
     collaboration program adequately without Federal assistance;
       ``(ii) specify how the Federal support provided will be 
     used to supplement, and not supplant, State, local, Indian 
     tribe, or tribal organization sources of funding that would 
     otherwise be available, including billing third-party 
     resources for services already covered under programs (such 
     as medicaid, medicare, and the State Children's Insurance 
     Program); and
       ``(iii) outline plans for obtaining necessary support and 
     continuing the proposed collaboration program following the 
     conclusion of Federal support.
       ``(G) Outcomes.--Applicants for an implementation grant 
     shall--
       ``(i) identify methodology and outcome measures, as 
     required by the Attorney General and the Secretary, to be 
     used in evaluating the effectiveness of the collaboration 
     program;
       ``(ii) ensure mechanisms are in place to capture data, 
     consistent with the methodology and outcome measures under 
     clause (i); and
       ``(iii) submit specific agreements from affected agencies 
     to provide the data needed by the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary to accomplish the evaluation under clause (i).
       ``(H) State plans.--Applicants for an implementation grant 
     shall describe how the adult or juvenile collaboration 
     program relates to existing State criminal or juvenile 
     justice and mental health plans and programs.
       ``(I) Use of funds.--Applicants that receive an 
     implementation grant may use funds for 1 or more of the 
     following purposes:
       ``(i) Mental health courts and diversion/alternative 
     prosecution and sentencing programs.--Funds may be used to 
     create or expand existing mental health courts that meet 
     program requirements established by the Attorney General 
     under part V of this title or diversion and alternative 
     prosecution and sentencing programs (including crisis 
     intervention teams and treatment accountability services for 
     communities) that meet requirements established by the 
     Attorney General and the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Training.--Funds may be used to create or expand 
     programs, such as crisis intervention training, which offer 
     specialized training to--

       ``(I) criminal justice system personnel to identify and 
     respond appropriately to the unique needs of an adult or 
     juvenile with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness 
     and substance abuse disorders; or
       ``(II) mental health system personnel to respond 
     appropriately to the treatment needs of preliminarily 
     qualified offenders.

       ``(iii) Service delivery.--Funds may be used to create or 
     expand programs that promote public safety by providing the 
     services described in subparagraph (C)(ii) to preliminarily 
     qualified offenders.
       ``(iv) In-jail and transitional services.--Funds may be 
     used to promote and provide mental health treatment for those 
     incarcerated or for transitional re-entry programs for those 
     released from any penal or correctional institution.
       ``(J) Geographic distribution of grants.--The Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Secretary, shall ensure 
     that planning and implementation grants are equitably 
     distributed among the geographical regions of the United 
     States and between urban and rural populations.
       ``(c) Priority.--The Attorney General, in awarding funds 
     under this section, shall give priority to applications 
     that--
       ``(1) demonstrate the strongest commitment to ensuring that 
     such funds are used to promote both public health and public 
     safety;
       ``(2) demonstrate the active participation of each co-
     applicant in the administration of the collaboration program; 
     and
       ``(3) have the support of both the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Matching Requirements.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     collaboration program carried out by a State, unit of local 
     government, Indian tribe, or tribal organization under this 
     section shall not exceed--
       ``(A) 80 percent of the total cost of the program during 
     the first 2 years of the grant;
       ``(B) 60 percent of the total cost of the program in year 
     3; and
       ``(C) 25 percent of the total cost of the program in years 
     4 and 5.
       ``(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of payments 
     made under this section may be made in cash or in-kind fairly 
     evaluated, including planned equipment or services.
       ``(e) Federal Use of Funds.--The Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary, in administering grants 
     under this section, may use up to 3 percent of funds 
     appropriated to--
       ``(1) research the use of alternatives to prosecution 
     through pretrial diversion in appropriate cases involving 
     individuals with mental illness;
       ``(2) offer specialized training to personnel of criminal 
     and juvenile justice agencies in appropriate diversion 
     techniques;
       ``(3) provide technical assistance to local governments, 
     mental health courts, and diversion programs, including 
     technical assistance relating to program evaluation;
       ``(4) help localities build public understanding and 
     support for community reintegration of individuals with 
     mental illness;
       ``(5) develop a uniform program evaluation process; and
       ``(6) conduct a national evaluation of the collaboration 
     program that will include an assessment of its cost-
     effectiveness.
       ``(f) Interagency Task Force.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General and the Secretary 
     shall establish an interagency task force with the 
     Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, Labor, 
     Education, and Veterans Affairs and the Commissioner of 
     Social Security, or their designees.
       ``(2) Responsibilities.--The task force established under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) identify policies within their departments which 
     hinder or facilitate local collaborative initiatives for 
     adults or juveniles with mental illness or co-occurring 
     mental illness and substance abuse disorders; and
       ``(B) submit, not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, a report to Congress containing 
     recommendations for improved interdepartmental collaboration 
     regarding the provision of services to adults and juveniles 
     with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and 
     substance abuse disorders.
       ``(g) Minimum Allocation.--Unless all eligible applications 
     submitted by any State or unit of local government within 
     such State for a planning or implementation grant under this 
     section have been funded, such State, together with grantees 
     within the State (other than Indian tribes), shall be 
     allocated in each fiscal year under this section not less 
     than 0.75 percent of the total amount appropriated in the 
     fiscal year for planning or implementation grants pursuant to 
     this section.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice to 
     carry out this section--
       ``(1) $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005; 
     and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2006 
     through 2008.''.
       (b) List of ``Best Practices''.--The Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     shall develop a list of ``best practices'' for appropriate 
     diversion from incarceration of adult and juvenile offenders.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

       ``Part HH--Adult and Juvenile Collaboration Program Grants

``Sec. 2991. Adult and juvenile collaboration programs.''.


  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have joined today with Senators DeWine, 
Grassley, Cantwell, and Domenici to introduce legislation that will 
help State and local governments reduce crime by providing more 
effective treatment for the mentally ill. All too often, people with 
mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system 
and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor 
offenses. Law enforcement officers' ever scarcer time is being occupied 
by these offenders, who divert them from their more urgent 
responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or 
jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for 
them. This bill give State and local governments the tools to break 
this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the 
public's safety, and mentally ill offenders.
  I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal 
justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that

[[Page S7487]]

hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement 
officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties 
around our Nation. All agreed that people with untreated mental illness 
are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health 
systems, prisons and jails do not have the resources they need to treat 
the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. As this 
legislation's findings detail, more than 16 percent of adults 
incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, about 20 
percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental 
health problems, and up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a 
serious mental illness will come into contact with the American 
criminal justice system at some point in their lives. This is a serious 
problem that I hear about often when I talk with law enforcement 
officials and others in Vermont.
  Under this bill, State and local governments can apply for funding to 
a. create or expand mental health courts or other court-based programs, 
which can divert qualified offenders from prison to receive treatment; 
b. create or expand programs to provide specialized training for 
criminal justice and mental health system personnel; c. create or 
expand local treatment programs that serve individuals with mental 
illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; 
and d. promote and provide mental health treatment for those 
incarcerated in or released from a penal or correctional institution.
  This legislation brings together law enforcement, corrections, and 
mental health professionals--indeed, officials from each of these 
fields in Vermont have offered their advice and support in drafting 
this bill. They know that the States have been dealing with the unique 
problems created by mentally ill offenders for many years, and that a 
Federal response is overdue. I look forward to working with them, and 
with Senator DeWine, Representative Ted Strickland, and other Members, 
to see this bill enacted this Congress.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be once again 
introducing with Senator DeWine the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and 
Crime Reduction Act of 2003. This bipartisan bill authorizes the 
Attorney General to administer a grant program to assist communities in 
planning and implementing services for mentally ill offenders. These 
grants will increase public safety by fostering collaborative efforts 
by criminal justice, mental health, and substance abuse agencies. I 
have seen these types of collaborative programs work in Iowa and I know 
that they can work elsewhere.
  We have an obligation to ensure that the public is protected from 
these offenders who suffer from mental illness. The Bureau of Justice 
Statistics has reported that over 16 percent of adults incarcerated in 
U.S. jails and prison have a mental illness. In addition, the Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has reported that over 20 
percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental 
health problems. This grant program will help increase public safety, 
as well as reduce the number of mentally ill adults and juveniles 
incarcerated in correctional facilities.
  These grant dollars may be used by States and localities to establish 
mental health courts or other diversion programs, create or expand 
community-based treatment programs, provide in-jail treatment and 
transitional services, and for training of criminal justice and mental 
health system employees. The state of Iowa and a number of its counties 
are already leading the way in finding creative and collaborative 
programs to address the problems presented by these mentally ill 
criminals. Working together, the criminal justice, mental health, and 
substance abuse professionals can make a difference in the lives of 
this special class of offenders and also increase the safety of the 
public.
  I want to thank Senator DeWine for his leadership on this important 
issue. He has drafted a bill that reflects a common sense approach to a 
serious public safety issue. I also want to encourage my colleagues to 
support this important piece of legislation.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator DeWine 
and Senator Patrick Leahy along with Senators Grassley and Domenici in 
cosponsoring this important legislation. This bill will take steps to 
reduce the prevalence of the mentally ill in the criminal justice 
system by providing more effective treatment. Forty percent of the 
mentally ill in this country come in contact with the criminal justice 
system, many for minor but repeated offenses. This wastes tremendous 
law enforcement resources that can be better focused on more urgent 
responsibilities and results in many of the mentally ill sitting in 
jail cells where little treatment is available to them. My State has 
already taken some forward looking action in this area, and this 
legislation is an important next step.
  The Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Act of 2003 funds new grants that 
will give States the tools they need to work collaboratively to break 
the cycle of mentally ill people repeatedly moving through the 
corrections system. This legislation will allow more jurisdictions to 
follow Seattle's lead in creating mental health courts that monitor 
individuals to keep them in treatment and out of jail. It will provide 
much needed funding to mental health and substance abuse programs, and 
it will provide critical dollars for treatment of those incarcerated in 
or released from prisons. The legislation has the support of Washington 
State Corrections Director Joe Lehman and the Washington Department of 
Social and Health Services as well as the National Alliance for the 
Mentally Ill and the Council of State Governments. I'd like to 
especially thank the Bazelon Center for its work in this area.
  Last year, the Council on State Governments Criminal Justice/Mental 
Health Consensus Project issued a report that detailed the imbalance of 
the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The Project found 
that, while those suffering from serious mental illness represent 
approximately five percent of the population of this country, they 
represent over 16 percent of the prison population. Of that 16 percent, 
nearly three-quarters also have a substance abuse problem, and nearly 
half were incarcerated for committing a nonviolent crime. In some 
jurisdictions recidivism rates for mentally ill inmates can reach over 
70 percent. Police, judges and prosecutors are usually without options 
of what to do with mentally ill patients, given the lack of health 
services, and thus many end up in jail for minor crimes. The Los 
Angeles County Jail alone holds as many as 3,300 individuals with 
mental illness, more than any state hospital or mental health 
institution in the United States.
  Each time a mentally ill individual is incarcerated, his or her 
mental condition will likely worsen. Once incarcerated, people with 
mental illness are particularly susceptible to harming themselves or 
others. This environment exacerbates their mental illness, yet access 
to effective counseling or medication is severely limited. This in turn 
brings on depression or delusions that immobilize them; many have spent 
years trying to mask torments or hallucinations with alcohol or drugs 
and on average spend more time in prisons.
  This problem is particularly acute in the area of juvenile offenders. 
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that 
over 20 percent of children in the juvenile justice system, over 
155,000, have serious mental health problems. This bill creates 
specialized training programs for juvenile and criminal justice agency 
personnel in identifying symptoms of mentally ill individuals that will 
help identify and treat juveniles at an earlier stage.

  The prevalence of people with mentally illness in the criminal 
justice system comes at a high price to taxpayers. In King County, WA, 
officials identified 20 people who had been repeatedly hospitalized, 
jailed or admitted to detoxification centers. These emergency services 
cost the county approximately $1.1 million in a single year. In 
contrast, an Illinois Cooperative Program which brought criminal 
justice and mental health service personnel together to provide 
services to those mentally ill patients released from jail calculated 
that the 30 individuals in the study spend approximately 2,200 days 
less in jail, and 2,100 fewer days, in hospitals than they had the 
previous year, for a savings of $1.2 million dollars.

[[Page S7488]]

  In 1997, Seattle Fire Department Captain Stanley Stevenson was 
murdered by an individual who had been found incompetent by the local 
municipal court but was released because of the lack of alternative 
options. This murder was the impetus for the creation of a Task Force 
that led directly to the formation of the King County Mental Health 
Court in 1999. The primary reason why this Court has been growing more 
effective in dealing with mentally ill offenders is that it has 
increased cooperation between the mental health and criminal justice 
systems, institutions that have traditionally not worked closely 
together. Building on the model of the drug court, the mental health 
court closely monitors compliance with treatment regimens by assembling 
a team proficient in dealing with the mentally ill and at using the 
stick of the criminal justice system to make that treatment work. The 
vast majority of these mentally ill individuals are responsive to 
treatment.
  This program has progressed well and is becoming an effective means 
of helping mentally ill offenders, assuring public safety, and running 
a more cost efficient system. Yet to allow this system to continue to 
expand in Seattle and other communities in Washington State, as well as 
to allow other States to begin using these types of programs, federal 
grant funding is critical. That is what this bill provides.
  Collaboration between mental health, substance abuse, law 
enforcement, judicial, and other criminal justice personnel is also 
critical to the success of our mental health court program in Seattle. 
It is only through full coordination between the criminal justice and 
the mental health treatment community at the Federal and the local 
level that these efforts will be successful.
  Similarly, only through full coordination at the Federal and local 
level will this bill be able to make a critical difference. I believe 
that some additional improvements can be made to strengthen that 
critical coordination and I look forward to working with Senator DeWine 
and Senator Leahy to accomplish that goal. I welcome the introduction 
of this legislation and look forward to working with my cosponsors to 
make this bill law in the next Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL  (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        McCain, Mr. Frist, Mr. Alexander, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Bunning, 
        Mr. Smith, Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Kennedy, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1195. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
clarify that inpatient drug prices charged to certain public hospitals 
are included in the best price exemptions for the medicaid drug rebate 
program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Bingaman, 
Rockefeller, McCain, Frist, Alexander, Lincoln, Bunning, Smith, Bob 
Graham, Santorum, Kerry, Kennedy and Hatch to introduce a modest but 
important piece of legislation, the Safety Net Hospital Pharmacy Access 
Act. This legislation would correct a small error in current law that 
prohibits safety-net hospitals from being able to negotiate with 
pharmaceutical companies for the lowest prices they can get.
  Let me provide some background on this problem. In 1990, Congress 
established the Medicaid drug-rebate program to ensure that the 
Medicaid program pays no more than a pharmaceutical manufacturer's 
``best price'' for a covered outpatient drug. So whatever was the 
lowest price the manufacturer offered to anyone, this becomes the price 
Medicaid pays under this ``best price'' rule.
  Unfortunately, this rule provides an incentive for pharmaceutical 
manufacturers not to offer deep discounts to anyone, given that these 
prices may become the new price that Medicaid pays. Given this, in 1992 
Congress exempted some organizations from the Medicaid best price 
calculations so that pharmaceutical manufacturers would offer them 
lower drug prices. These organizations include the VA, the Department 
of Defense, and section 340B covered entities. These 340B hospitals are 
so called because they fall under section 340B of the Public Health 
Services Act, which defines 12 categories of publicly funded safety net 
providers. There are approximately 160 hospitals in the country that 
fall under the 340B program. These hospitals often bear the burden of 
providing a substantial amount of uncompensated care in dealing with 
the indigent or the uninsured.
  Unfortunately, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
interpreted the 1992 law as only applying to outpatient drugs purchased 
by these entities. Therefore, drugs purchased for inpatient use at the 
340B hospitals are covered by the Medicaid best price rule. This means 
these hospitals actually pay more for these drugs than for drugs that 
they can negotiate their own prices for in the outpatient setting. The 
legislation I am introducing today corrects this problem by allowing 
the 340B hospitals to also negotiate for lower drug prices in the 
inpatient setting.
  This is an important correction since these hospitals are often 
providing free care to the indigent and the uninsured. And let me be 
clear that this legislation would not require pharmaceutical companies 
to provide discounts to these hospitals. All this legislation would do 
is allow the hospitals to negotiate for lower prices. However, in my 
discussion with representatives of hospitals that would be affected by 
this law, they believe they would be able to save money.
  For instance, the Maricopa County hospital, which is the public 
hospital for the city of Phoenix, believes that it could save up to $1 
million a year. Since this hospital constantly runs in the red because 
of the massive amount of uncompensated care it is required under 
federal law to provide, such savings would be very helpful.
  I want to thank the bill's cosponsors. I also want to urge my 
colleagues to take a close look at this important legislation. I am 
going to work to see that it is passed this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1196. A bill to eliminate the marriage penalty permanently in 
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to 
provide permanent tax relief from one of the most egregious, anti-
family aspects of the tax code--the marriage penalty. Relieving 
American taxpayers of this burden has been one of my highest priorities 
as a U.S. Senator.
  Last week President Bush signed into law a $350 billion jobs and 
economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the 
economy. The bill provides immediate marriage penalty relief by 
enlarging the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax bracket for 
married couples filing jointly to twice that as for single filers. This 
provision will save 34 million married couples an average of $589 this 
year alone.
  Enacting marriage penalty relief is a giant step for tax fairness, 
but it may be fleeting. The Jobs and Growth Act was just signed, but 
even as the ink dries a tax increase on married couples looms in the 
near future. Since the bill was restricted by artificial limitations to 
$350 billion, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect 
for two years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for 
millions of Americans. Similar restrictions were placed on the 2001 tax 
cut, so, while relief will be phased in by 2009, it will disappear for 
good in 2011 unless we act decisively.
  Millions of couples across America will be penalized once more by our 
tax code simply because they are married. Without marriage penalty 
relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay the government an 
average $1,400 more in taxes.
  Given the state of the economy and the difficulty many families face 
in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this 
important reform.
  Without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant 
disincentive for people to walk down the aisle, and the benefits of 
marriage are well established. Marriage is a fundamental institution in 
our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living 
in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or

[[Page S7489]]

to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to 
be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as 
adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married 
mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.
  The bill I am offering would make the marriage penalty relief in the 
Jobs and Growth Act permanent. It also will accelerate changes to the 
earned income tax credit that were passed in the 2001 tax reform bill. 
This will reduce the marriage penalty on lower income couples.
  We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between 
love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event.
  I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and say ``I do'' to 
providing permanent marriage penalty relief today.
  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. 1196

       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 ``Permanent Marriage Penalty 
     Relief Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF PROVISIONS.

       (a) Elimination of Marriage Penalty in Standard 
     Deduction.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard 
     deduction) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the applicable percentage of the dollar 
     amount in effect under subparagraph (D)'' in subparagraph (A) 
     and inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect 
     under subparagraph (C)'';
       (B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (D) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (E) by striking the last sentence.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``(2)(D)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``(2)(C)''.
       (B) Paragraph (7) of section 63(c) of such Code is 
     repealed.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
       (b) Elimination of Marriage Penalty in 15-Percent 
     Bracket.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (8) of Section 1(f ) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax 
     tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) Elimination of marriage penalty in 15-percent 
     bracket.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) the maximum taxable income in the 15-percent rate 
     bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the 
     minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income 
     bracket in such table) shall be 200 percent of the maximum 
     taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table 
     contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under 
     this subsection), and
       ``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table 
     contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts 
     determined under clause (i).
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any amount determined under 
     subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The heading for subsection (f ) 
     of section 1 of such Code is amended by striking ``Phaseout'' 
     and inserting ``Elimination''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
       (c) Marriage Penalty Relief for Earned Income Credit.--
       (1) Increased phaseout amount.--
       (A) In general.--Section 32(b)(2)(B) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts) is amended by 
     striking ```increased by--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``increased by $3,000.''.
       (B) Inflation adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B)(ii) of section 
     32( j) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) in the case of the $3,000 amount in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2003' for `calendar 
     year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''.
       (C) Effective date.--The amendments made by this paragraph 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
       (2) Expansion of mathematical error authority.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 6213(g) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (K), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (L) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (L) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(M) the entry on the return claiming the credit under 
     section 32 with respect to a child if, according to the 
     Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders established 
     under section 453(h) of the Social Security Act, the taxpayer 
     is a noncustodial parent of such child.''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by this paragraph 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2003.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Repeal of amendment.--Sections 303(g) of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is repealed.
       (2) Repeal of sunset.--Title IX of the Economic Growth and 
     Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of 
     provisions of such Act) shall not apply to sections 301, 302, 
     and 303 (other than subsection (g) of such section 303) of 
     such Act (relating to marriage penalty relief).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 1197. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure the 
safety and accuracy of medical imaging examinations and radiation 
therapy treatments; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, imagine for a moment you have gone to the 
doctor to have a medical condition evaluated. Uncertain as to what your 
injury may be, your doctor sends you to a specialist for a medical 
imaging examination to determine the extent of your injury and the 
proper course of treatment for it.
  Or, imagine, having heard the dreaded diagnosis of cancer, going to 
the same facility for radiation therapy.
  In either case, our sense of concern and anxiety about our medical 
condition will serve to focus our attention on ourselves, and not on 
the caregivers providing us with the treatment we need to recover, or 
in the case of cancer, to survive.
  But, what would you say if you knew that the individual helping to 
direct your diagnosis or the one providing your course of treatment is 
someone who has done nothing more to earn his credentials than spend a 
few weeks getting some on the job training.
  Imagine how you would feel and the level of trust you would have in a 
system that allowed such a thing to happen.
  Unfortunately, that's an all too common occurrence with the present 
state of our health care system.
  But, it is a problem that we can solve with the passage of 
legislation I am introducing today.
  The Consumer Assurance of Radiological Excellence, RadCARE, Act will 
ensure that there are coherent standards in place for those who plan 
and deliver radiation therapy treatments. I am pleased to be joined by 
my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, as well 
as Senators Daschle, Lautenberg, and Dorgan, in this effort, which will 
bring peace of mind and restore the confidence of the health consumer 
in the treatment they receive from those who perform radiologic 
procedures. It will also increase awareness of the skills of these 
health care professionals and raise the level of visibility their 
profession enjoys in the public eye.
  It is important that we establish standards for personnel who perform 
radiologic procedures because physicians depend upon medical imaging 
examinations to diagnose disease and identify and treat injuries of all 
kinds. The quality of a radiologic procedure hinges upon the expertise 
of the professionals who assist in administering them.
  Currently, 15 States as well as the District of Columbia do not 
regulate or register radiologic personnel.
  To address that lack of attention, the RadCARE Act will strengthen 
the Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981. The 
current law calls for States to establish voluntarily a set of 
educational and credentialing standards for radiologic and medical 
imaging personnel. Yet many States still do not have licensing laws in 
place that meet the standards recommended by the Federal Government. 
The RadCARE Act will require that radiologic and medical imaging 
personnel meet a minimum credentialing standard.
  The RadCARE Act will not affect states that have a suitable licensing 
system or those that have mandated higher standards than required by 
Federal law. If a state has no meaningful

[[Page S7490]]

regulations or licensing system, however, then the Federal standards 
will apply. The RadCARE Act also has a provision to ensure access to 
quality healthcare in rural regions where a one-size-fits all approach 
may not be applicable. Enforcement of the RadCARE Act would be achieved 
by restricting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to facilities that 
employ personnel who meet the minimal federal standards.
  The RedCARE Act will improve the safety of radiological procedures by 
reducing the risk of harmful overexposure to radiation. Healthcare 
costs will also be lowered by decreasing the number of repeated 
procedures due to personnel error. Additionally, the RadCARE Act will 
enable radiologists and other healthcare professionals to have access 
to quality information so that patients receive the best health care 
possible.
  This legislation is supported by a variety of organizations concerned 
with the quality of these procedures, including the American Society of 
Radiologic Technologists, the Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist 
Section, the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, the Nuclear 
Medicine Technology Certification Board, the Association of Vascular 
and Interventional Radiographers, and the other members of the Alliance 
for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, which represents the 
more than 275,000 medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals 
in the United States.
  When it comes right down to it, it's a big enough battle to fight the 
cancers or the injuries to our bodies that require such invasive 
treatments or diagnosis. We shouldn't have to worry about the level of 
competence of those who are providing us with the services we so 
desperately require for the maintenance of our health.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing this much 
needed legislation. It respects the power of the states who have 
addressed this problem as it provides minimum standards for those who 
have not.
  More importantly, its enactment into law will do a great deal to 
increase the level of confidence of the American health consumer in our 
healthcare system.
  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. 1197

       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 ``Consumer Assurance of 
     Radiologic Excellence Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) More than 300,000,000 medical imaging examinations and 
     radiation therapy treatments are administered annually in the 
     United States.
       (2) Seven out of every 10 Americans undergo a medical 
     imaging examination or radiation therapy treatment every year 
     in the United States.
       (3) The administration of medical imaging examinations and 
     radiation therapy treatments and the effect on individuals of 
     such procedures have a substantial and direct effect upon 
     public health and safety and upon interstate commerce.
       (4) It is in the interest of public health and safety to 
     minimize unnecessary or inappropriate exposure to radiation 
     due to the performance of medical imaging and radiation 
     therapy procedures by personnel lacking appropriate education 
     and credentials.
       (5) It is in the interest of public health and safety to 
     have a continuing supply of adequately educated persons and 
     appropriate accreditation and certification programs 
     administered by State governments.
       (6) Persons who perform or plan medical imaging or 
     radiation therapy, including those employed at Federal 
     facilities or reimbursed by Federal health programs, should 
     be required to demonstrate competence by reason of education, 
     training, and experience.
       (7) The protection of public health and safety from 
     unnecessary or inappropriate medical imaging and radiation 
     therapy procedures and the assurance of efficacious 
     procedures are the responsibilities of both the State and the 
     Federal Governments.
       (8) Facilities that conduct medical imaging or radiation 
     therapy engage in and affect interstate commerce. Patients 
     travel regularly across State lines to receive medical 
     imaging services or radiation therapy. Facilities that 
     conduct medical imaging or radiation therapy engage 
     technicians, physicians, and other staff in an interstate 
     market, and purchase medical and other supplies in an 
     interstate market.
       (9) In 1981, Congress enacted the Consumer-Patient 
     Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) 
     which established minimum Federal standards for the 
     accreditation of education programs for persons who perform 
     or plan medical imaging examinations and radiation therapy 
     treatments and for the certification of such persons. The Act 
     also provided the States with a model State law for the 
     licensing of such persons.
       (10) Twenty-two years after the enactment of the Consumer-
     Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981--
       (A) 13 States do not require licensure of any kind for 
     persons who perform or plan medical imaging examinations and 
     radiation therapy treatments;
       (B) 37 States license, regulate, or register radiographers;
       (C) 28 States license radiation therapists;
       (D) 22 States license nuclear medicine technologists;
       (E) 8 States license or require board certification of 
     medical physicists; and
       (F) no States regulate or license medical dosimetrists.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure the accreditation of education programs for, 
     and the licensure or certification of, persons who perform, 
     plan, evaluate, or verify patient dose for medical imaging 
     examinations and radiation therapy treatments; and
       (2) to ensure the safety and accuracy of medical imaging 
     examinations and radiation therapy treatments.

     SEC. 3. QUALITY OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION THERAPY.

       Part F of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 262 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

           ``Subpart 4--Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy

     ``SEC. 355. QUALITY OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION THERAPY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish standards 
     to assure the safety and accuracy of medical imaging or 
     radiation therapy. Such standards shall include licensure or 
     certification, accreditation, and other requirements 
     determined by the Secretary to be appropriate.
       ``(b) Exemptions.--The standards established under 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to physicians (as defined in 
     section 1861(r) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(r))), nurse practitioners and physician assistants (as 
     defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(5))).
       ``(c) Requirements.--Under the standards established under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that individuals 
     prior to performing or planning such imaging or therapy--
       ``(1) have successfully completed a national examination 
     approved by the Secretary under subsection (d) for 
     individuals who perform or plan medical imaging or radiation 
     therapy; and
       ``(2) meet such other requirements relating to medical 
     imaging or radiation therapy as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(d) Approved Bodies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall certify private 
     nonprofit organizations or State agencies as approved bodies 
     with respect to the accreditation of educational programs or 
     the administration of examinations to individuals for 
     purposes of subsection (c)(1) if such organizations or 
     agencies meet the standards established by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (2) and provide the assurances required under 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Standards.--The Secretary shall establish minimum 
     standards for the certification of approved bodies under 
     paragraph (1) (including standards for recordkeeping, the 
     approval of curricula and instructors, the charging of 
     reasonable fees for accreditation or for undertaking 
     examinations), and other additional standards as the 
     Secretary may require.
       ``(3) Assurances.--To be certified as an approved body 
     under paragraph (1), an organization or agency shall provide 
     the Secretary satisfactory assurances that the body will--
       ``(A) comply with the standards described in paragraph (2);
       ``(B) notify the Secretary in a timely manner before the 
     approved body changes the standards of the body; and
       ``(C) provide such other information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(4) Withdrawal of approval.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may withdraw the 
     certification of an approved body if the Secretary determines 
     the body does not meet the standards under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Effect of withdrawal.--If the Secretary withdraws the 
     certification of an approved body under subparagraph (A), the 
     accreditation of an individual or the completion of an 
     examination administered by such body shall continue in 
     effect until the expiration of a reasonable period, as 
     determined by the Secretary, for such individual to obtain 
     another accreditation or to complete another examination.
       ``(e) Existing State Standards.--Standards for the 
     licensure or certification of personnel, accreditation of 
     educational programs, or administration of examinations,

[[Page S7491]]

     established by a State prior to the effective date of the 
     standards promulgated under this section, shall be deemed to 
     be in compliance with the requirements of this section unless 
     the Secretary determines that such State standards do not 
     meet the minimum standards prescribed by the Secretary or are 
     inconsistent with the purposes of this section.
       ``(f) Evaluation and Report.--The Secretary shall 
     periodically evaluate the performance of each approved body 
     under subsection (d) at an interval determined appropriate by 
     the Secretary. The results of such evaluations shall be 
     included as part of the report submitted to the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives in accordance with 354(e)(6)(B).
       ``(g) Delivery of and Payment for Services.--Not later than 
     18 months after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary shall promulgate regulations to ensure that all 
     programs that involve the performance of or payment for 
     medical imaging or radiation therapy, that are under the 
     authority of the Secretary, are performed in accordance with 
     the standards established under this section.
       ``(h) Alternative Standards for Rural Areas.--The Secretary 
     shall determine whether the standards developed under 
     subsection (a) must be met in their entirety with respect to 
     payment for medical imaging or radiation therapy that is 
     performed in a geographic area that is determined by the 
     Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board to be a 
     ``rural area''. If the Secretary determines that alternative 
     standards for such rural areas are appropriate to assure 
     access to quality medical imaging, the Secretary is 
     authorized to develop such alternative standards. Alternative 
     standards developed under this subsection shall apply in 
     rural areas to the same extent and in the same manner as 
     standards developed under subsection (a) apply in other 
     areas.
       ``(i) Regulations.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     such regulations as may be necessary to implement this 
     section.
       ``(j) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Approved body.--The term `approved body' means a 
     nonprofit organization or State agency that has been 
     certified by the Secretary under subsection (d)(1) to 
     accredit or administer examinations to individuals who 
     perform or plan medical imaging or radiation therapy.
       ``(2) Medical imaging.--The term `medical imaging' means 
     any procedure or article, excluding medical ultrasound 
     procedures, intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of 
     disease or other medical or chiropractic conditions in 
     humans, including diagnostic X-rays, nuclear medicine, and 
     magnetic resonance procedures.
       ``(3) Perform.--The term `perform', with respect to medical 
     imaging or radiation therapy, means--
       ``(A) the act of directly exposing a patient to radiation 
     via ionizing or radio frequency radiation or to a magnetic 
     field for purposes of medical imaging or for purposes of 
     radiation therapy; and
       ``(B) the act of positioning a patient to receive such an 
     exposure.
       ``(4) Plan.--The term `plan' with respect to medical 
     imaging or radiation therapy, means the act of preparing for 
     the performance of such a procedure to a patient by 
     evaluating site-specific information, based on measurement 
     and verification of radiation dose distribution, computer 
     analysis, or direct measurement of dose, in order to 
     customize the procedure for the patient.
       ``(5) Radiation therapy.--The term `radiation therapy', 
     means any procedure or article intended for use in the cure, 
     mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans 
     that achieves its intended purpose through the emission of 
     radiation.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 1198. A bill to establish the Child Care Provider Development and 
Retention Grant Program, the Child Care Provider Scholarship Program, 
and a program of child care provider health benefits coverage, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Focus on 
Committed and Underpaid Staff for Children's Sake Act. I am pleased 
that Senators Kennedy, Murray, and Bingaman are joining me as original 
cosponsors and that companion legislation is being introduced in the 
House today by Representatives George Miller and Patrick Kennedy.
  The need for child care has become a daily fact of life for millions 
of parents nationwide. Sixty-five percent of mothers with children 
under age six and 78 percent of mothers with children ages 6 to 13 are 
in the labor force. Each day, 13 million preschool children, including 
6 million infants and toddlers, spend some part of their day in child 
care.
  The quality of that care has a tremendous impact on the critical 
early years of children's development. And, the most powerful 
determinant of the quality of child care is the training, education, 
and pay of those who spend 8-10 hours a day caring for our children.
  Yet, what we know about the child care field is alarming. Despite the 
fact that continuity of care is critical for the emotional development 
of children, staff turnover at child care centers averages 30 percent 
per year--four times greater than the turnover rate for elementary 
school teachers.
  We as a society say there is no more important task than helping to 
raise a child. Yet, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we pay 
the average child care worker about $16,500 a year--barely above the 
poverty level for a family of three. Few child care providers have 
basic benefits like health coverage or paid leave. Only a small 
fraction of child care workers have graduated from college.
  We pay people millions of dollars a year to throw baseballs, to shoot 
basketballs and to swing golf clubs. What does that say about our 
priorities when at the same time we pay those who care for our most 
precious resource--our children--poverty-level wages?
  A report by the University of California, Berkeley and the Center for 
Child Care Workforce on child care providers' pay, training and 
education highlighted the current crisis in the child care field. In a 
survey of child care centers in three California communities, the study 
found that three-quarters of all child care staff employed in 1996 were 
no longer on the job in 2000. Some centers reported 100 percent 
turnover. Additionally, nearly half of the child care providers who had 
left had a Bachelor's degree, compared to only one-third of the new 
teachers. Some 49 percent, nearly half, of those who had left their 
job, left the child care field entirely.
  It's clear that if we want to attract quality teachers to the child 
care field, the pay has to better reflect the value we place on their 
work. We can't attract them and we can't keep them if we don't pay them 
a living wage.
  The legislation I am introducing today will provide states with funds 
to increase child care worker pay based on the level of education--the 
greater the level of education, the greater the increase in pay. In 
addition, the legislation will provide scholarships of up to $1,500 for 
child care workers who want to further their early childhood education 
training by getting a college degree, an Associate's degree, or a child 
development associate credential.
  The legislation also includes a separate allotment to states to 
address access to health care coverage by child care workers. States 
would be free to develop their own creative methods to improve access 
to health care, but the intent is to ensure that an industry that works 
with children--who as many parents know, often come down with a variety 
of illnesses, particularly preschool age children--would have greater 
access to comprehensive and affordable health care coverage.
  We will never make significant strides in improving the quality of 
child care in this Nation if we fail to address one of the leading 
problems--attracting and retaining a quality child care workforce. It 
is time to invest in our children by investing in those who dedicate 
their lives to caring for our children.
  I ask unanimous consent to print a short summary of the bill 
following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  the focus act: focus on committed and underpaid staff or children's 
                                sake act

       Background: According to the Department of Labor, the 
     average wage for a child care provider is $8.16 an hour--
     $16,980 per year. Despite the important role child care 
     providers play in early childhood development and learning, 
     child care providers earn less than bus drivers ($29,430), 
     barbers ($21,190), and janitors ($19,800). The turnover rate 
     in the child care field is high--30 percent. But, to offer 
     compensation to attract and retain high quality staff, child 
     care programs would be required to charge fees that many 
     parents would not be able to afford. Current law 
     reimbursement rates, which are woefully inadequate for 
     center-based and family day care homes already shut out too 
     many parents from the child care market.
       The FOCUS Act: The purpose of the FOCUS Act is to establish 
     a Child care Provider Retention and development Grant 
     Program, a Child Care Provider Scholarship Program, and to 
     improve access to health coverage by child care workers and 
     their dependents in order to reward and promote retention of 
     committee, quality child care providers.
       Child Care Provider Retention and Development Grant 
     Program: The FOCUS Act provides grants to states to 
     supplement the

[[Page S7492]]

     wages of full-time child care workers who have a child 
     development associate (CDA) credential by at least $1,000. A 
     child care worker who has a Bachelors Degree in child 
     development or early child education shall receive a grant of 
     at least twice as much as grants made to providers who have 
     an Associates degree in the area of child development or 
     early child education. Grants to providers with an AA degree 
     shall be at least 150 percent of grants made to those with a 
     CDA. States shall provide grants in progressively larger 
     dollar amounts to child care providers to reflect the number 
     of years worked as a child care provider.
       Child Care Provider Scholarships: The FOCUS Act provides 
     grants to states for child care providers who have been 
     employed for at least a year in the child care field--maximum 
     grant is $1,500, to further staff education and training. 
     FOCUS Act scholarships are not counted against other federal 
     education aid.
       Health Care Coverage for Child Care Providers: The FOCUS 
     Act provides grants to states to provide better access to 
     health coverage for child care workers. States retain a great 
     deal of flexibility in determining how they will improve 
     access to health care and health coverage by child care 
     providers.
       Funding: For FY 2004, the FOCUS Act authorizes $500 million 
     for wage and scholarship initiatives and $200 million for 
     health care initiatives. Such sums are authorized for fiscal 
     years 2005-2008.
       Of the $500 million for wage and scholarship initiatives, 
     67.5 percent is for grants to attract and retain a quality 
     child care workforce and 22.5 percent is for scholarships to 
     promote a child care workforce better educated on childhood 
     development.
       Set-aside: 3 percent for Indian Tribes and tribal 
     organizations.
       Funding formula: based on the number of children under age 
     5 and the percentage of children receiving free or reduced 
     price lunches. 90/10 funding 1st year; 85/15 funding 2nd 
     year; 80/20 funding 3rd year; 75/25 funding fourth and 
     subsequent years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. McCain):
  S. 1199. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 
outreach activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal 
benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs 
conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, 
Mrs. Lincoln, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  Three years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, 
launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' Under the direction 
of Secretary Ray Boland, the program encourages veterans to apply, or 
to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the 
United States military.
  As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored six events around 
Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which 
veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for 
Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These 
events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the 
work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans 
service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA 
and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be 
eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended 
the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives 
from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety 
of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of 
my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these 
events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn 
about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability 
claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries.
  The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's 
Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by 
naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American 
Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 
issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine.
  The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the 
obligation of the VA. These are Federal benefits that we owe to our 
veterans and it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure 
that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform 
outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse 
to halt or reduce these efforts.
  The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the 
overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the 
supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 11,000 Wisconsin 
veterans are unaware of benefits that may be owed to them, it is 
troubling to think how many veterans around our country are also 
unaware of them. We can and should do better for our veterans, who 
selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all 
cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach 
program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the 
tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe.
  In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's 
outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a 
statutory definition of the term ``outreach.''
  My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by 
the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line 
items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its 
agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits 
Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. Currently 
funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for 
these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated 
funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding 
with other crucial VA programs.
  I have long supported efforts adequately fund VA programs. We can and 
should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our 
brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they 
have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long 
distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim 
processed.
  Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require 
the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the 
VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more 
closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their 
efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of 
effort that could waste scarce funding.
  Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative 
agreements with State Departments of Veterans Affairs regarding 
outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to 
award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach 
activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are 
awarded to State departments under this program could be used to 
enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to 
veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits 
process. State departments that receive grants under this program may 
choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other 
public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in 
veterans outreach activities.
  I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national 
and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives 
of our Nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; 
Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the 
National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National 
Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin 
Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County 
Veterans Service Officers; the Wisconsin Department of Disabled 
American Veterans; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans of Foreign 
Wars; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans Association; and the Wisconsin 
State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America.
  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:

[[Page S7493]]

                                S. 1199

       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 ``Veterans Outreach 
     Improvement Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF OUTREACH.

       Section 101 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(34) The term `outreach' means the act or process of 
     reaching out in a systematic manner to proactively provide 
     information, services, and benefits counseling to veterans, 
     and to the spouses, children, and parents of veterans who may 
     be eligible to receive benefits under the laws administered 
     by the Secretary, to ensure that such individuals are fully 
     informed about, and assisted in applying for, any benefits 
     and programs under such laws.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF 
                   OUTREACH OF ACTIVITIES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:

                       ``SUBCHAPTER IV--OUTREACH

     ``Sec. 561. Outreach activities: funding

       ``(a) The Secretary shall establish a separate account for 
     the funding of the outreach activities of the Department, and 
     shall establish within such account a separate subaccount for 
     the funding of the outreach activities of each element of the 
     Department specified in subsection (c).
       ``(b) In the budget justification materials submitted to 
     Congress in support of the Department budget for any fiscal 
     year (as submitted with the budget of the President under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31), the Secretary shall include a 
     separate statement of the amount requested for such fiscal 
     year for activities as follows:
       ``(1) For outreach activities of the Department in 
     aggregate.
       ``(2) For outreach activities of each element of the 
     Department specified in subsection (c).
       ``(c) The elements of the Department specified in this 
     subsection are as follows:
       ``(1) The Veterans Health Administration.
       ``(2) The Veterans Benefits Administration.
       ``(3) The National Cemetery Administration.

     ``Sec. 562. Outreach activities: coordination of activities 
       within Department

       ``(a) The Secretary shall establish and maintain procedures 
     for ensuring the effective coordination of the outreach 
     activities of the Department between and among the following:
       ``(1) The Office of the Secretary.
       ``(2) The Office of Public Affairs.
       ``(3) The Veterans Health Administration.
       ``(4) The Veterans Benefits Administration.
       ``(5) The National Cemetery Administration.
       ``(b) The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) periodically review the procedures maintained under 
     subsection (a) for the purpose of ensuring that such 
     procedures meet the requirement in that subsection; and
       ``(2) make such modifications to such procedures as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate in light of such review in 
     order to better achieve that purpose.

     ``Sec. 563. Outreach activities: cooperative activities with 
       States; grants to States for improvement of outreach

       ``(a) It is the purpose of this section to assist States in 
     carrying out programs that offer a high probability of 
     improving outreach and assistance to veterans, and to the 
     spouses, children, and parents of veterans who may be 
     eligible to receive veterans' or veterans'-related benefits, 
     to ensure that such individuals are fully informed about, and 
     assisted in applying for, any veterans' and veterans'-related 
     benefits and programs (including under State veterans' 
     programs).
       ``(b) The Secretary shall ensure that outreach and 
     assistance is provided under programs referred to in 
     subsection (a) in locations proximate to populations of 
     veterans and other individuals referred to in that 
     subsection, as determined utilizing criteria for determining 
     the proximity of such populations to veterans health care 
     services.
       ``(c) The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements 
     and arrangements with veterans agencies of the States in 
     order to carry out, coordinate, improve, or otherwise enhance 
     outreach by the Department and the States (including outreach 
     with respect to State veterans' programs).
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary may award grants to veterans 
     agencies of States in order to achieve purposes as follows:
       ``(A) To carry out, coordinate, improve, or otherwise 
     enhance outreach, including activities pursuant to 
     cooperative agreements and arrangements under subsection (c).
       ``(B) To carry out, coordinate, improve, or otherwise 
     enhance activities to assist in the development and submittal 
     of claims for veterans' and veterans'-related benefits, 
     including activities pursuant to cooperative agreements and 
     arrangements under subsection (c).
       ``(2) A veterans agency of a State receiving a grant under 
     this subsection may use the grant amount for purposes 
     described in paragraph (1) or award all or any portion of 
     such grant amount to local governments in such State, other 
     public entities in such State, or private non-profit 
     organizations in such State for such purposes.
       ``(e) Amounts available for the Department for outreach in 
     the account under section 561 of this title shall be 
     available for activities under this section, including grants 
     under subsection (d).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 5 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new items

                       ``SUBCHAPTER IV--OUTREACH

``561. Outreach activities: funding.
``562. Outreach activities: coordination of activities within 
              Department.
``563. Outreach activities: cooperative activities with States; grants 
              to States for improvement of outreach.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Bunning, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Smith, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle, and Mrs. 
        Lincoln):
  S. 1201. A bill to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent unhealthy, 
risky behaviors among teenage youth; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am happy to be joining my 
colleague Senator Lindsey Graham in introducing the YMCA Healthy Teen 
Act. Senator Graham and I are introducing this bill along with Senators 
Bunning, Corzine, Daschle, DeWine, Durbin, Landrieu, Lincoln, Murray, 
Roberts, and Smith. This bipartisan legislation will address a critical 
issue for our Nation's future: the health of our children.
  Unfortunately, there has been an alarming trend in recent years 
towards increased obesity in our Nation's youth. On average, America's 
young people spend 4 hours a day watching television, 1 and \1/2\ hours 
a day listening to music, 30 minutes watching videos, and 20 minutes 
playing video games. Only 13 percent of students walk or bike to 
school. Only one State, Illinois, requires daily physical education in 
schools. The Surgeon General has reported that 13 percent of children 
and adolescents are overweight, more than double the number who were 
overweight in 1970.
  We are rapidly becoming a country of the unfit, the inactive, and the 
unhealthy--and our young people are suffering the consequences of a 
sedentary lifestyle. If ignored, obesity in children leads to obesity 
in adulthood--and the numerous health problems that come with it 
including diabetes, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease, and cancer. These five diseases alone account for 
more than two-thirds of all deaths in the United States, and caring for 
them comes at a tremendous cost to society--close to $117 billion 
annually.
  On top of the need for increased physical activity and healthier 
lifestyles, the evidence is all around us that our young people today 
also need some extra care and support. Kids today face challenges and 
obstacles that I never dreamed about when I was growing up in Regent. 
Although recent promising evidence show that rates of smoking, drinking 
and the use of illegal drugs among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders fell 
simultaneously in 2002, still half of all high school seniors have 
reported using illicit drugs at least once in their lifetime.
  These challenges arise in part from the temptations kids face when 
they have too much idle time on their own. Every day, millions of 
American teens are left unsupervised after school. Studies have shown 
that teens left unsupervised during those hours are more likely to 
smoke, drink alcohol, engage in sexual activity, and become involved in 
delinquent behavior than teens who participate in structured, 
supervised afterschool activities. Also, nearly 80 percent of teens who 
are involved in afterschool activities are A or B students, while only 
half of those who are not involved earn those grades.
  To address these crucial issues facing America's youth, I propose we 
turn to an exemplary organization dedicated to improving kids' lives, 
the YMCA. Nearly 2.4 million teenagers--1 out of every 10--are involved 
in a program offered by their local YMCA. In 2001, total membership 
rolls reached their highest level in history, with 18.3 million men, 
women, and children--half of them under 18--receiving a vast range of 
services from their local YMCAs.

  In the past year and a half, I visited three of the six YMCAs that 
serve

[[Page S7494]]

North Dakota teens. Through programs focused on education, healthy 
lifestyles, physical activity, leadership, and service learning, these 
North Dakota YMCAs helped 12,500 teens in my State develop character, 
build confidence, and become healthier within the last year alone.
  I have seen firsthand what a difference a safe, structured, and 
healthy afterschool environment can make for our youth. In those 
communities in North Dakota and across the country, the YMCA is a place 
to learn, a place to play sports, a place to meet friends, and a place 
to simply shed the problems that youths face every day in school and at 
home and just have some fun. North Dakota teens embrace the countless 
opportunities presented to them at their YMCAs with enthusiasm, and I 
have no doubt they are not alone.
  While the YMCA is national in scope, they are local in control and 
every program is designed and evaluated to meet the communities' unique 
needs. I am confident that this bill will help the YMCA to reach more 
teens and continue to provide successful solutions for our Nation's 
teens and families.
  To serve more teens in need of healthier lifestyles and safe and 
structured afterschool programs, the YMCA has set the goal of doubling 
the number of teens served to one in five teens by 2005. This ambitious 
campaign is called the Teen Action Agenda.
  The bill that Senator Graham and I offer today provides funding to 
help the YMCA reach teens who need safe and structured activities that 
will promote physical activity and healthy lifestyles. This piece of 
legislation authorizes Federal appropriations of $20 million per year 
for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for the YMCA to implement its Teen 
Action Agenda. This funding would in turn be distributed to local YMCAs 
that are located in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Similar 
legislation was passed in the 105th Congress for the Boys and Girls 
Club and in the 106th Congress for the Police Athletic League to aid in 
their efforts to reach out to youth.
  Each program funded through this initiative would include physical 
activity and nutritional education components, and could also focus on 
other health risks faced by teenage youths, such as tobacco, drugs, and 
risky behaviors that lead to injury and violence.
  This bill will encourage public-private partnerships and leverage 
additional funding for teen programs. It contains a matching component 
that will be met by the YMCA through local and private support. The 
YMCA in 2001 raised $777 million in public contributions, double the 
annual contribution levels of a decade ago, and continues to grow and 
gain support from communities for its work. The matching component, 
along with the support the YMCA programs receive from national 
corporate sponsors, will turn $20 million in Federal funds into $50 
million that will be invested in proven programs that serve teens who 
are most in need.
  Adolescence is an opportune time to instill in children positive 
eating habits and exercise routines that will carry over into 
adulthood. The YMCA is an established and proven organization that is 
in the position to reach out and influence thousands of teenagers. This 
legislation is an opportunity for us to do something for the health of 
our Nation's teenagers, when they now face greater risks and challenges 
than ever before. Again, for the sake of our children's future, I urge 
my Senate colleagues to join Senator Graham and me in cosponsoring this 
piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 1203. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding 
distance education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, one of the great benefits of the revolution 
in information technology has been its effect on education. With the 
information superhighway and the number of online research and 
information sources it has made available, modern technology and higher 
education have become inseparable.
  The notion of distance learning and the access it provides to 
students--especially those in rural areas--could use a little more 
support, however, so that is why I am introducing the Distance Learning 
and Online Education Act of 2003.
  This legislation builds on principles already found in the Higher 
Education Act to help reach populations that have traditionally been 
excluded from attending institutions of higher education.
  Wyoming is a very rural State. There is only one four year school in 
the entire State, and there are only seven community colleges. If you 
include the University of Wyoming's satellite campuses, that adds up to 
nine institutions of higher education in an area of nearly one hundred 
thousand square miles. By contrast, there are one hundred twenty nine 
institutions of higher education in the State of Massachusetts, which 
makes up an area roughly one tenth the size of Wyoming. In fact, the 
only State that has fewer institutions of higher education is Alaska.
  Expanding access to higher education for our rural communities has 
been a challenge for many years. Now, the Internet has made it possible 
for prospective students in rural communities, far removed from the 
university campus, to attend college online. They may now spend their 
time studying, rather than commuting back and forth between school.
  At present, the most significant barriers that distance learners and 
online education programs must face are those that were created by the 
Higher Education Act. Under current law, students attending 
institutions that enroll more than half of their students in distance 
programs are ineligible for Federal student financial assistance. As a 
result, many of the communities that this assistance is designed to 
reach have been excluded from sharing in its benefits, including 
students from rural communities, single mothers, working professionals, 
and a range of others who are interested in attending college but who 
cannot afford to do so.
  The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem by 
creating an avenue for online and distance educators to reach out to 
rural communities and non-traditional students by making them eligible 
for federal student assistance. It creates an eligibility standard for 
these institutions that helps to ensure they will provide high quality 
education programs, while it also protects Federal funding from fraud 
and abuse.
  The Distance Learning and Online Education Act ensures students will 
receive a high quality education by requiring online educators to 
become accredited by an agency that has an appropriate focus on 
distance education. As provided under current law, the accrediting body 
must also be recognized by the Secretary of Education as an agency that 
can determine the institution's eligibility under Title IV of the 
Higher Education Act. This is a slightly higher standard than is 
expected of the brick and mortar institutions that have been entrusted 
with Title IV funding since the Higher Education Act was originally 
passed.
  My bill will also protect against any fraud and abuse of Title VI 
funds by requiring distance educators to demonstrate their financial 
responsibility. In addition to meeting the default rates already 
established in current law, institutions interested in becoming 
eligible must also have a record free from audit findings or program 
review findings resulting in significant penalties for a period of at 
least two years. Distance learning institutions must also show that 
they have not had their participation in Title IV limited, suspended or 
terminated during the previous five years, and they must create a 
system of assurances that the student participating in the program is 
the individual completing the work.
  It is clear that the shape of higher education in this country is 
changing and it will never be the same again. We have an opportunity, 
through technology, to reach student populations that have been 
excluded from participation in higher education because they cannot 
afford to attend or travel to classrooms or campuses located many miles 
from their homes. We can change part of the equation by changing the 
way we view those programs that hold the greatest promise for non-
traditional students. Making them eligible for federal student 
assistance will go a long way toward making a higher education 
available to everyone with

[[Page S7495]]

the interest in learning and the determination to get the job done. The 
Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003 will provide a hand 
up--not a hand out--to those whose interest in a higher education is 
limited only by their resources. By offering them a helping hand we can 
eliminate that obstacle and help a new generation achieve their goals 
and live their dreams.
  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. 1203

       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 ``Distance Education and 
     Online Learning Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. STUDENT ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 484(l)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1091(l)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``in whole or in part'' and inserting 
     ``predominantly'';
       (B) by striking ``of 1 year or longer''; and
       (C) by striking ``unless'' and all that follows through 
     ``all courses at the institution''; and
       (2) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) Requirement.--An institution of higher education 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) is an institution of higher 
     education that is not an institution or school described in 
     section 3(3)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
     Technical Education Act of 1998.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE PROGRAM.

       Section 481(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1088(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3)(A) A program that is offered predominantly through 
     distance education methods and processes (other than 
     correspondence courses) is an eligible program for purposes 
     of this title if--
       ``(i) the program was reviewed and approved by an 
     accrediting agency or association that--

       ``(I) is recognized by the Secretary under subpart 2 of 
     part H; and
       ``(II) has evaluation of distance education programs within 
     the scope of its recognition; and

       ``(ii) the institution offering the program--
       ``(I) has not had its participation in programs under this 
     title limited, suspended, or terminated within the preceding 
     5 years;
       ``(II) has not had or failed to resolve an audit finding or 
     program review finding under this Act during the preceding 2 
     years that resulted in the institution being required to 
     repay an amount that is greater than 10 percent of the total 
     funds the institution received under the programs authorized 
     by this title for any award year covered by the audit or 
     program review;
       ``(III) has not been found by the Secretary during the 
     preceding 5 years to be in material noncompliance with the 
     provisions of this Act related to the submission of 
     acceptable and timely audit reports required under this 
     title; and
       ``(IV) is determined to be financially responsible under 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     498(c).
       ``(B) If the accreditation agency or association withdraws 
     approval of the program described in subparagraph (A)(i) or 
     the institution fails to meet any of the requirements 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii), then the program shall 
     cease to be an eligible program at the end of the award year 
     in which such withdrawal of approval or failure to meet such 
     requirements occurs. The program shall not be an eligible 
     program until the provisions of subparagraph (A) (i) and (ii) 
     are met again.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for 
     determining whether a program that offers a degree or 
     certificate on the basis of a competency assessment, that 
     examines the content of the course work provided by the 
     institution of higher education, is an eligible program for 
     purposes of this title.''.

     SEC. 4. RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING AGENCY OR ASSOCIATION.

       Section 496 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1099b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (n)(3), by striking the last sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``If the agency or association 
     requests that the evaluation of institutions offering 
     distance education programs be included within its scope of 
     recognition, and demonstrates that the agency or association 
     meets the requirements of subsection (p), then the Secretary 
     shall include the accreditation of institutions offering 
     distance education programs within the agency's or 
     association's scope of recognition.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Distance Education Programs.--An agency or 
     association that seeks to evaluate the quality of 
     institutions offering distance education programs within its 
     scope of recognition shall, in addition to meeting the other 
     requirements of this subpart, demonstrate to the Secretary 
     that the agency or association assesses--
       ``(1) measures of student achievement of students enrolled 
     in distance education programs;
       ``(2) the preparation of faculty and students to 
     participate in distance education programs;
       ``(3) the quality of interaction between faculty and 
     students in distance education programs;
       ``(4) the availability of learning resources and support 
     services for students in distance education programs; and
       ``(5) measures to ensure the integrity of student 
     participation in distance education programs.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Miller):
  S. 1204. A bill to recognize the heritage of hunting and provide 
opportunities for continued hunting on Federal public land; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting 
Heritage Protection Act. With the introduction of this important 
legislation, we are able to acknowledge our Nation's rich heritage of 
hunting. The purpose of this bill is to pass that legacy on to future 
generations by protecting and preserving the rights of our Nation's 
sportsmen and women.
  In 2001 over 13 million Americans contributed over $20.6 billion to 
the U.S. economy while hunting--a true recreational activity. Many 
believe that in order to hunt you must own land, but that is not true. 
I believe that hunting should be available as a recreational activity 
for everyone.
  I have been an avid outdoor sportsman since my early adulthood. I am 
also an avid conservationist, like most other hunters. Mr. President, 
recreational hunting provides many opportunities to spend valuable time 
with children, just as I do with my son. He has been hunting since he 
was a young boy where he discovered and learned to appreciate one of 
the Earth's greatest treasures, nature.
  Over the years, hunters have contributed billions of dollars to 
wildlife conservation, by purchasing licenses, permits, and stamps, as 
well as paying excise taxes on goods used by hunters. Since the time of 
President Teddy Roosevelt, father of the conservation movement, 
sportsmen and women have been and will continue to be some of the 
greatest supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation 
practices in the U.S.
  Hunters need to be recognized for the vital role they play in 
conservation in this country. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act will 
do just that. This bill formalizes a policy by which the Federal 
Government will support, promote, and enhance recreational hunting 
opportunities, as permitted under State and Federal law. Further, the 
bill mandates that Federal public land and water are to be open to 
access and use for recreational hunting where and when appropriate. I 
should clarify and stress that this bill does not suggest that we open 
all national parks to hunting. As I mentioned, the goal is simple--I 
want recreational hunting on our public land to be available to the 
citizens of this country where and when appropriate.
  It is crucial that the tradition of hunting is protected and that the 
valuable contributions that hunters have made to conservation in this 
country are recognized. And, we want to ensure that Federal land 
management decisions and their actions result in a `no net loss of 
hunting opportunities'' on our public lands. This bill allows Congress 
to address this issue and to honor our Nation's sportsmen and women.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 1205. A bill to provide discounted housing for teachers and other 
staff in rural areas of States with a population less than 1,000,000 
and with a high population of Native Americans or Alaska Natives; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murkowski, I rise to 
introduce the Rural Teacher Housing Act of 2003.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will 
have a profound effect on the retention of good teachers, 
administrators, and other school staff in remote and rural areas of 
Alaska and in the rest of our Nation.
  In rural areas of Alaska, school districts face the challenge of 
recruiting and retaining teachers, administrators and other school 
staff due to the lack of affordable housing. In one school district, 
they hire one teacher for every

[[Page S7496]]

six who decide not to accept job offers. Half of the applicants not 
accepting a teaching position in that district indicated that their 
decision was related to the lack of housing options.
  Recently, I traveled throughout rural Alaska with Education Secretary 
Rod Paige. I wanted him to see the challenges of educating children in 
such a remote and rural environment. At one rural school, the principal 
must sleep in his office due to the lack of housing in that village. In 
the same village, there is not enough housing for each teacher to have 
their own separate home--several teachers must share a single home. 
Therefore, there is not enough room for the teachers' spouses.
  Rural Alaskan school districts also experience a high annual rate of 
teacher turnover due to the dearth of affordable housing. Apparently, 
up to 30 percent of teachers leave rural school districts due to 
housing issues. How can we expect our children to thrive and to meet 
the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act in such an educational 
environment? Clearly, the lack of affordable teacher housing in rural 
Alaska is an issue that needs to be addressed in order to ensure that 
children in rural Alaska receive an educational experience that is 
second to none and is also respectful of cultural differences.
  My bill authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
provide funds to States to address the shortage of teacher housing in 
rural areas in Alaska and in the rest of our Nation. Specifically, my 
bill provides funds to States that have a population of 1 million or 
fewer people and include qualifying municipalities, which have 
populations of 6,500 or fewer people and also do not have direct access 
to either a State or interstate highway system. The appropriate state 
housing authority will accept such funds and will then transfer the 
funds to an eligible school district in a qualifying municipality. An 
eligible school district must be within the boundaries of an Indian 
reservation, one or more Alaska Native villages or land owned by one or 
more Alaska Native village corporations. This legislation will allow 
the eligible school districts to address the housing shortage in the 
following ways: construct housing units, purchase and rehabilitate 
existing housing units, or rehabilitate housing units that are already 
owned by a school district. Once this phase is complete, eligible 
school districts shall provide the housing to teachers or other school 
staff under terms agreed upon by the school district and the teacher or 
other staff.
  It is imperative that we address this important issue immediately and 
allow the flexibility for the disbursement of funds to be handled at 
the local level. The quality of education of our rural children is at 
stake.
  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. 1205

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       The Act may be cited as the ``Rural Teacher Housing Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (2) Eligible school district.--The term ``eligible school 
     district'' means a school district located within a qualified 
     municipality within an eligible State and is within the 
     boundaries of--
       (A) Indian lands;
       (B) 1 or more Native villages; or
       (C) land owned by 1 or more Village Corporations.
       (3) Eligible State.--The term ``eligible State'' means any 
     State having a population of fewer than 1,000,000 people, 
     based upon the most recent Government census.
       (4) Indian lands.--The term ``Indian lands'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2103 of the Revised 
     Statutes (25 U.S.C. 81).
       (5) Native village.--The term ``Native village'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 3 of the Alaska Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C 1602).
       (6) Other staff.--The term ``other staff'' means pupil 
     services personnel, librarians, career guidance and 
     counseling personnel, education aides, and other 
     instructional and administrative personnel.
       (7) Qualified municipality.--The term ``qualified 
     municipality'' means a municipality or unorganized borough 
     within an eligible State--
       (A) that has a total population of 6,500 or fewer people, 
     based upon the most recent Government census; and
       (B) does not have direct access to either a State or 
     interstate highway system.
       (8) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development.
       (10) Teacher.--The term ``teacher'' means an individual who 
     is employed as a teacher in a public elementary or secondary 
     school, and meets the certification or licensure requirements 
     of the eligible State.
       (11) Village Corporation.--The term ``Village Corporation'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Alaska 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602).

     SEC. 3. RURAL TEACHER HOUSING PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary shall provide funds 
     to eligible States, in accordance with such procedures as the 
     Secretary determines are appropriate, to be used as provided 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Funds received pursuant to subsection (a) 
     shall be used by the eligible State to make grants to 
     eligible school districts to be used as provided in paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) Use of funds by eligible school districts.--Grants 
     received by an eligible school district pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) shall be used for--
       (A) the construction of new housing units within a 
     qualified municipality;
       (B) the purchase and rehabilitation of existing housing 
     units within a qualified municipality; or
       (C) the rehabilitation of housing units within a qualified 
     municipality that are owned by an eligible school district.
       (c) Ownership of Housing.--All housing units constructed or 
     purchased with grant funds awarded under this Act shall be 
     owned by the relevant eligible school district.
       (d) Occupancy of Housing Units.--Each housing unit 
     constructed, purchased, or rehabilitated with grant funds 
     under this Act shall be provided to teachers or other staff 
     who are employed by the public school district in which the 
     housing unit is located, under terms agreed upon by the 
     eligible school district and the teacher or other staff
       (e) Compliance With Building Codes.--Each eligible school 
     district receiving a grant under this Act shall ensure that 
     all housing units leased pursuant to subsection (d) meet all 
     applicable State and local building codes.
       (f) Matching Requirement.--Each State that receives Federal 
     funds under this Act shall provide matching funds from non-
     Federal sources in an amount equal to 20 percent of such 
     Federal funds.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development $50,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2013 to carry out this Act.

                          ____________________