Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 82 (Thursday, June 5, 2003)

[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.

____________________