[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 101-165]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP PRIORITIES FOR THE 108TH CONGRESS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, officially, the Congress that ended in 
December was the 107th Congress. But history will almost surely record 
it as the September 11th Congress. From the moment the first plane hit 
the first tower until the last moments of the lameduck session, helping 
America recover from that horrific day, bringing its plotters to 
justice and making changes to protect America from future terrorist 
attacks dominated the Senate's agenda.
  We continued that work--even as we confronted unprecedented 
challenges in the Senate: anthrax, the rise of new threats to our 
Nation, and the loss of our friend and colleague, Paul Wellstone.
  Through tragic and historic events, the 107th Senate under Democratic 
control produced a number of important legislative accomplishments: 
aviation security and counterterrorism legislation; the toughest 
corporate accountability law since the SEC was created in 1934; the 
most far-reaching campaign finance reforms since Watergate; the most 
significant overhaul of Federal education policies since 1965; and a 
new farm bill to replace the failed Freedom to Farm Act.
  However, other important legislation fell victim to special-interest 
arm-twisting, and the other party's unwillingness to compromise on 
their proposals, or even consider ours. We saw that on proposals to 
dedicate greater resources to homeland security, a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, and a real, enforceable patients' bill of 
rights.
  The proposals we are introducing today recognize that the American 
people have real concerns about their security, and that Republicans 
and the Bush administration have not done enough to address those 
concerns.
  But they also recognize that security means more than national 
security, and homeland security. It means economic security, retirement 
security, and the security of knowing that our children are getting a 
good education, and that, if you get sick, health care is available and 
affordable.
  It means giving people who work fulltime the security of knowing they 
can earn a decent wage--whether they work on a farm, in a factory, or 
at a fast-food restaurant. It is the security of knowing that our air 
is safe to breathe and our water is safe to drink, that America is 
living up to its commitment to civil rights, and that we are keeping 
our promises to our veterans.
  Democrats are committed to tackling terrorism abroad, and making our 
country more secure.
  One of our first priorities will be to make Americans safer by 
enhancing protections for our ports, borders, food and water supplies, 
and chemical and nuclear plants.
  We are introducing a bill to commit real resources to doing all of 
those things, and to hiring more police and first responders and 
providing them the tools and training to do the difficult jobs we are 
now asking them to do.
  We also recognize that national strength also depends on economic 
strength, and in the last 2 years, America's economy has weakened. In 
the coming weeks, we will put forward our ideas for how best to 
stimulate the economy in the short term.
  But, in the long term, one of the most important things we can do is 
give people greater confidence that their private pensions will be 
there for them. That is why another of our leadership bills is one to 
strengthen pension protections, expand pension coverage, and crack down 
on rogue corporations.
  It has been said that almost every problem any society faces can be 
solved with two things: good health, and a good education--and we have 
bills in each of those areas.
  The Right Start for Children Act makes Head Start fully available for 
4- and 5-year-olds, and increases availability for infants and 
toddlers. It will help improve childcare quality, make childcare more 
affordable for 1 million additional children, and strengthen child 
nutrition programs to reduce child hunger.
  The Educational Excellence for All Learners Act builds on that 
foundation by improving education every step of the way--from 
kindergarten, to college, to lifelong learning. It makes sure that we 
match the real reforms we passed last year with the real resources they 
demand. It will help us recruit, hire, and train qualified teachers, 
build new schools, and make college and job training more affordable 
and more available.
  President Bush pledged to leave no child behind, and then proposed 
more than a billion dollars of education cuts. We are proposing to put 
our money where the Republicans' mouths are--and help secure a good 
start, a good education, and good prospects for all Americans.
  When it comes to health care, it was an outrage that 40 million 
Americans were uninsured 2 years ago. In the past year, over 1 million 
more Americans have lost health insurance. And those who are lucky 
enough to have health insurance are seeing their premiums skyrocket.
  With the Health Care Coverage Expansion and Quality Improvement Act, 
we hope to reduce the number of uninsured by making health care 
coverage more available to small businesses, parents of children 
eligible for CHIP and Medicaid, pregnant women, and others.
  We also want to improve the quality of care people receive by 
overcoming Republican resistance to a real, enforceable, patients' bill 
of rights.
  We will also insist that mental illness be treated like any other 
illness--something that will not only honor Paul Wellstone's legacy, 
but also help millions of families.
  We are also committed to passing a prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare, and lowering the price of prescription drugs for all 
Americans. Last year, we passed a bill to lower the price of generic 
drugs, but the House refused to take it up. And we had 52 Senators 
support our Medicare prescription drug benefit--but it was blocked on a 
procedural motion.
  The high cost of prescription drugs--combined with the increasing 
need for such drugs--is destroying the life savings--and threatening 
the dignity--of millions of older Americans. And that is simply 
unacceptable.
  A couple of months ago in elections all across the country, and in 
words spoken here in the Senate, we have seen that when it comes to 
protecting equal rights, we still have a lot of work to do in changing 
hearts, minds, and laws.
  That is why we are introducing The Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for

[[Page 102]]

Americans Act. This bill will enforce employment nondiscrimination, 
fund the election-reform measures we passed last year, outlaw hate 
crimes, and take other steps to see that as a nation, we live up to the 
promise of equal rights.
  I hope those Republicans who have recently expressed their support 
for civil rights will join us in expressing their support for this 
legislation. I also hope they will join us in supporting our bill to 
combat drug and gun violence, to crack down on new crimes like identity 
theft, and to protect against and prevent crimes against children and 
seniors.
  We also need to ensure greater dignity for our minimum wage workers, 
our farmers, and our veterans. The purchasing power of the minimum wage 
is now the lowest it has been in more than 30 years. And a full-time 
minimum wage income won't get you over the poverty line. If we can 
afford over a trillion dollars in tax cuts for those at the top of the 
income scale, we can afford a dollar fifty more an hour for those at 
the bottom.
  We need to help our rural economy, and help those impacted by a 
drought and other natural disasters that are being called among the 
costliest for agricultural producers in our Nation's history.
  And we need to maintain our commitment to those currently serving, 
and keep our promises to our veterans. One way we do that is by 
allowing our wounded veterans to receive both their full disability and 
retirement benefits. Another way is by addressing the current crisis in 
veterans' health care. With each of these proposals--we stand with the 
leading veterans organizations, and for those who served our country.
  Finally, we are committed to stopping what is adding up to an all-out 
assault on our environment. By unilaterally abandoning the Kyoto 
process, the Bush administration took us out of position to lead the 
world on the issue of climate change. The Global Climate Security Act 
will help America reassert our position of world leadership on this 
vital issue of world health.
  Each of these things is relevant, not revolutionary. If they seem 
familiar, it is because most of what is in them has been introduced 
before.
  But they are not law, despite the support of the American people and, 
in some cases, a bipartisan majority of Senators.
  They have been opposed by an extreme few, and their special interest 
supporters. And while those bills have languished, we have seen the 
rise of more threats to our country; more people have lost their jobs 
and their health care; and more of our national challenges have gone 
unmet.
  These are our priorities. In the last couple of days, the President 
has made clear his priorities--more tax cuts for those who need them 
least.
  The President's plan won't help middle income families. It won't 
contribute to economic growth; it won't make our homeland more secure; 
it won't expand educational opportunity for the young, or strengthen 
health care for the elderly.
  Instead--by putting us deeper into deficit and debt--it makes all of 
these things, and all of our other goals, harder to achieve.
  Our bills will help us create an America that is stronger, safer, and 
better for all Americans--and I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dayton, 
        Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Reed):
  S. 22. A bill to enhance domestic security, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Daschle 
and other Democratic Senators in introducing the Justice Enhancement 
and Domestic Security Act of 2003. This comprehensive crime bill builds 
on prior Democratic crime initiatives, including the landmark Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, that worked to bring the 
crime rate down.
  This year marked an unfortunate turn after a decade of remarkable 
declines in the Nation's crime rate. The decade of progress we made 
under the leadership of a Democratic President helped revitalize our 
cities and restore a sense of security for millions of Americans. 
According to the latest FBI report, however, the number of murders, 
rapes, robberies, assaults, and property crimes is up across the United 
States in all regions of the country except the Northeast, the first 
year-to-year increase since 1991. This upswing has been fueled by the 
faltering economy and high unemployment rates. The President's ill-
conceived tax cut in 2001, along with the new cuts he proposes now, are 
likely to exacerbate these economic woes by plunging us deeper into 
deficit spending.
  It is troubling that, at this crucial moment, the Bush Administration 
is proposing to reduce by nearly 80 percent the Community Oriented 
Policing Services, COPS, program that has helped to put 115,000 new 
police officers on the beat since 1994. I believe that we must fight to 
maintain and extend the COPS program, which has proven its value in 
increasing the security of our cities, towns, and neighborhoods.
  The Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act is designed to get 
our Nation's crime rates moving downward, in the right direction, 
again. It also aims to bolster our security against terrorists, and to 
improve the administration of justice throughout the country.
  This bill shows the way to making Americans safer. That objective 
will not be achieved by partisan posturing, ``tough on crime'' 
rhetoric, and a few executions. It will be achieved by giving law 
enforcement the tools they need to do their job, focusing on both 
immediate and long-term threats we face, and protecting the most 
vulnerable in our society.
  Most importantly, we should not divert all our attention to fighting 
foreign terrorism and foreign wars only to discover that the safety of 
Americans at home is jeopardized by losing the fight on crime. 
Unfortunately, the rising crime rate shows the risk of not paying 
attention to the domestic crime issue. The safety of our schools, 
homes, streets, neighborhoods and communities cannot become a casualty 
of the economic downturn and our international engagements.
  Among other things, the bill does the following: Provides $12 billion 
over three years to support public safety officers in their efforts to 
protect homeland security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. 
Increases border security by authorizing funds for additional INS 
personnel and technology. Provides statutory authority for the 
President to use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists in 
appropriate circumstances. Targets crime against the most vulnerable 
members of our society: children and senior citizens. Combats the 
insidious crime of identity theft. Provides enhanced rights and 
protections for crime victims. Extends the COPS program and authorizes 
law enforcement improvement and training grants for rural communities. 
Increases funding to reduce the backlog of untested DNA evidence in the 
Nation's crime labs. Proposes important reforms to FBI policies on 
whistleblowers and other issues critical to our security. Cracks down 
on war criminals from other nations seeking sanctuary in the United 
States. Protects against the execution of innocent individuals.
  In sum, the bill represents an important next step in the continuing 
effort by Senate Democrats to enhance homeland security and to enact 
tough yet balanced reforms to our criminal justice system.
  I should note that the bill contains no new death penalties and no 
new or increased mandatory minimum sentences. We can be tough without 
imposing the death penalty, and we can ensure swift and certain 
punishment without removing all discretion from the judge at 
sentencing.
  As we provide the necessary tools for Federal law enforcement 
officials to protect our homeland security, we must remember that State 
and local

[[Page 103]]

law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency personnel are our 
full partners in preventing, investigating and responding to criminal 
and terrorist acts.
  As a former State prosecutor, I know that public safety officers are 
often the first responders to a crime. On September 11, the Nation saw 
that the first on the scene were the heroic firefighters, police 
officers and emergency personnel in New York City. These real-life 
heroes, many of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice, remind us of how 
important it is to support our State and local public safety partners.
  Subtitle A of title I of the Justice Enhancement and Domestic 
Security Act establishes a First Responders Partnership Grant program, 
which will provide $4 billion in annual grants for each of the next 
three years to support our State and local law enforcement officers in 
the war against terrorism. First Responder Grants will be made directly 
to State and local governments and Indian tribes for equipment, 
training and facilities to support public safety officers in their 
efforts to protect homeland security and prevent and respond to acts of 
terrorism. Grants may be used to pay up to 90 percent of the cost of 
the equipment, training or facility, and each State will be guaranteed 
a fair minimum amount. This is essential Federal support that our State 
and local public safety officers need and deserve.
  Our State and local public safety law enforcement partners welcome 
the challenge to join in our national mission to protect our homeland 
security. But we cannot ask State and local law enforcement officers, 
firefighters and emergency personnel to assume these new national 
responsibilities without also providing new Federal support. The First 
Responders Partnership Grants will provide the necessary Federal 
support for our State and public safety officers to serve as full 
partners in our fight to protect homeland security and respond to acts 
of terrorism.


                            Border Security

  Subtitle B of title I provides for additional increases in INS 
personnel and improvements in INS technology to guard our borders. Just 
in the last few weeks, we have seen reports suggesting that numerous 
aliens crossed our Northern border illegally with the intention of 
planning terrorist acts. Through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Enhanced 
Border Security and Visa Reform Act, we have attempted to bolster our 
borders by creating additional positions. But our work is not done. 
This legislation would authorize such sums as may be necessary for the 
INS to hire an additional 250 inspectors and associated support staff, 
and an additional 250 investigative staff and associated support staff, 
during each fiscal year through FY2007. It would also authorize $250 
million to the INS for the purposes of making improvements in 
technology for improving border security and facilitating the flow of 
commerce and persons at ports of entry, including improving and 
expanding programs for preenrollment and preclearance. Finally, this 
subtitle requires the Attorney General to report to Congress about the 
Department's implementation of the border improvements we have already 
legislated, and about his recommendations for any additional 
improvements.


                  Military Tribunal Authorization Act

  On November 13, 2001, President Bush signed a military order 
authorizing the use of military commissions to try suspected 
terrorists. This order stimulated an important national debate and led 
to a series of Judiciary Committee hearings with the Attorney General 
and others to discuss the many legal, constitutional, and policy 
questions raised by the use of such tribunals. Our hearings, and the 
continued public discourse, helped to clarify the scope of the 
President's order and better define the terms of the debate.
  Administration officials have taken the position that the President 
does not need the sanction of Congress to convene military commissions, 
but I disagree. Military tribunals may be appropriate under certain 
circumstances, but only if they are backed by specific congressional 
authorization. At a minimum, as the distinguished senior senator from 
Pennsylvania stated on this floor on November 15, ``the executive will 
be immeasurably strengthened if the Congress backs the President.'' 
Clearly, our government is at its strongest when the executive and 
legislative branches of government act in concert.
  Subtitle C of title I, the Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 
2003 would provide the executive branch with the specific authorization 
it now lacks to use extraordinary tribunals to try members of the al 
Qaeda terrorist network and those who cooperated with them. 
Specifically, this legislation authorizes the use of ``extraordinary 
tribunals'' for al Qaeda members and for persons aiding and abetting al 
Qaeda in terrorist activities against the United States who are 
apprehended in, or fleeing from, Afghanistan. It also authorizes the 
use of tribunals for those al Qaeda members and abettors who are 
captured in any other place where there is armed conflict involving the 
U.S. Armed Forces.
  The Military Tribunal Authorization Act defines the jurisdiction and 
procedure of tribunals in a way that ensures a ``full and fair'' trial 
for anyone detained. It incorporates basic due process guarantees, 
including the right to independent counsel. These procedures do not as 
some have claimed provide greater protections to suspected terrorists 
than we offer our own soldiers. These are rather, the very basic 
guarantees provided under various sources of international law. 
Finally, the bill comes down squarely on the side of transparency in 
government by providing that tribunal proceedings should be open and 
public, and include public availability of the transcripts of the trial 
and the pronouncement of judgment. Passage of authorizing legislation 
would ensure the constitutionality of military tribunals and protect 
any convictions they might yield, while at the same time showing the 
world that we will fight terrorists without sacrificing our principles.
  Title I of our bill would also provide a new tool for law enforcement 
to deal with the problem of serious hoaxes and malicious false reports 
relating to the use of biological, chemical, nuclear, or other weapons 
of mass destruction. These so-called ``hoaxes'' inflict both mental and 
economic damage on victims. They drain away scarce law enforcement 
resources from the investigation of real terrorist activity. They 
interrupt vital communication facilities. Finally, they feed a public 
fear that the vast majority of law abiding Americans are working hard 
to dispel.
  Federal, State, and local law enforcement already have statutes which 
they have been using aggressively to prosecute those who have taken 
advantage of these times to perpetrate hoaxes about anthrax 
contamination. Existing statutes create serious penalties for threats 
to use biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, for sending any 
threatening communication through the mail, or for making a willful 
false statement of Federal authorities. Indeed, current Federal threat 
laws do not require that the defendant have either the intent or 
present ability to carry out a threat. However, while they carry high 
penalties, including a maximum of life imprisonment, these statutes can 
sometimes be awkward when applied in the hoax context.
  The Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act provides a well-
tailored statute that deals specifically with the problem of 
biological, chemical, nuclear and other mass destruction hoaxes. For 
instance, it gives prosecutors a means to distinguish between a person 
who is actually threatening to use anthrax on a victim, and a person 
who never intends to use it, but wants the victim or the police to 
think they have done so. Another provision provides for mandatory 
restitution to any victim of these crimes, including the costs of any 
and all government response to the hoax. An earlier Administration 
proposal, offered during the debate over the terrorism bill, would have 
limited such restitution to the Federal government. As we know all too 
well from recent events, however, it is State and local authorities, 
along with private victims, who are often the first responders and 
primary victims when these incidents occur. Our bill

[[Page 104]]

provides a mechanism so that they, too, can be reimbursed for their 
expenses.
  The second title of the Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act 
contains a several proposals aimed at protecting the most vulnerable 
members of our society: children and seniors.
  First, part 1 of subtitle A would enhance the operation of the AMBER 
Alert communications network in order to aid the recovery of abducted 
children. It is disturbing to see on TV or in the newspapers photo 
after photo of missing children from every corner of the Nation. As the 
father of three Children, as well as a grandfather of two, I know that 
an abducted child is a parent's or grandparent's worst nightmare.
  Unfortunately, it appears this nightmare occurs all too often. 
Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that the number of children 
taken by strangers annually is between 3,000 and 4,000. These parents 
and grandparents, as well as the precious children, deserve the 
assistance of the American people and helping hand of the Congress.
  The AMBER Plan was created as a reaction to the kidnapping and brutal 
murder of 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas, By 
coordinating their efforts, law enforcement, emergency management and 
transportation agencies, radio and television stations, and cable 
systems have worked to develop an innovative early warning system to 
help find abducted children by broadcasting information including 
descriptions and pictures of the missing child, the suspected abductor, 
a suspected vehicle, and any other information available and valuable 
to identifying the child and suspect to the public as speedily as 
possible.
  The AMBER Alert system's popularity has raced across the United 
States: since the original AMBER Plan was established in 1996, 55 
modified versions have been adopted at local, regional, and statewide 
levels. Eighteen States have already implemented statewide plans. It is 
also a proven success: to date, the AMBER Plan has been credited with 
recovering 30 children.
  The National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003 directs the Attorney 
General, in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation and the 
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to appoint a Justice 
Department National AMBER Alert Coordinator to oversee the Alert's 
communication network for abducted children. The AMBER Alert 
Coordinator will work with States, broadcasters, and law enforcement 
agencies to set up AMBER plans, serve as a point of contact to 
supplement existing AMBER plans, and facilitate regional coordination 
of AMBER alerts. In addition, the AMBER Alert Coordinator will work 
with the FCC, local broadcasters, and local law enforcement agencies to 
establish minimum standards for the issuance of AMBER alerts and for 
the extent of their dissemination. In sum, our bill will help kidnap 
victims while preserving flexibility for the States in implementing the 
Alert system.
  Because developing and enhancing the AMBER Alert system is a costly 
endeavor for States to take on alone, our bill establishes two Federal 
grant programs to share the burden. First, the bill creates a Federal 
grant program, under the direction of the Secretary of Transportation, 
for statewide notification and communications systems, including 
electronic message boards and road signs, along highways for alerts and 
other information regarding abducted children. Second, the bill 
establishes a grant program managed by the Attorney General for the 
support of AMBER Alert communications plans with law enforcement 
agencies and others in the community.
  Similar legislation was proposed in the last Congress by Senators 
Feinstein and Hutchison and approved by both the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and the full Senate by unanimous consent only one week after 
introduction. When the bill passed, it had garnered 41 cosponsors from 
both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, despite our great efforts to 
have the bill passed on its own merits, the House failed to pass it as 
a stand-alone bill. Instead, it was included in a larger package of 
bills dubbed the Child Abduction Prevention Act, introduced by 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner. Most of the incorporated 
bills had passed the House but were stalled in the Senate due to 
controversial language.
  Our Nation's children, parents, and grandparents deserve our help to 
stop the disturbing trend of child abductions. The AMBER Alert National 
Network Act ensures that our communications systems help rescue 
abducted children from kidnappers and return them safely to their 
families.
  Subtitle A of title II also includes the Protecting Our Children 
Comes First Act of 2003, which would double funding for the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, (NCMEC), reauthorize the 
Center through fiscal year 2006, and increase Federal support to help 
NCMEC programs find missing children.
  As the Nation's top resource center for child protection, the NCMEC 
spearheads national efforts to locate and recover missing children and 
raises public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, 
molestation, and sexual exploitation, As a national voice and advocate 
for those too young to vote or speak up for their own rights, the NCMEC 
works to make our children safer. The Center operates under a 
Congressional mandate and works in cooperation with the Justice 
Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 
coordinating the efforts of law enforcement officers, social service 
agencies, elected officials, judges, prosecutors, educators, and the 
public and private sectors to break the cycle of violence that 
historically has perpetuated such needless crimes against children.
  NCMEC professionals have disturbingly busy jobs, they have worked on 
more than 90,000 cases of missing and exploited children since its 1984 
founding, helping to recover more than 66,000 children. The Center 
raised its recovery rate from 60 percent in the 1980s to 94 percent 
today. It set up a nationwide, toll free, 24-hour telephone hotline to 
take reports about missing children and clues that might lead to their 
recovery. It also manages a national Child Pornography Tipline to 
handle calls from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of 
children through the production and distribution of pornography and a 
CyberTipline to process online leads from individuals reporting the 
sexual exploitation of children. It has taken the lead in circulating 
millions of photographs of missing children, and serves as a vital 
resource for the 17,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the 
United States.
  Today, the NCMEC is truly a national organization, with its 
headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia and branch offices in five other 
locations throughout the country to provide hands-on assistance to 
families of missing children and conduct an array of prevention and 
awareness programs. It has also grown into an international 
organization, establishing the International Division of the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which works to fulfill the 
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 
The International Division provides assistance to parents, law 
enforcement, attorneys, nonprofit organizations, and other concerned 
individuals who are seeking assistance in preventing or resolving 
international child abductions.
  The NCMEC manages to do all of this good work with only a $10 million 
annual grant, which expired at the end of fiscal year 2002. We should 
act now both to extend its authorization and increase the center's 
funding to $20 million each year through fiscal year 2006 so that it 
can continue to help keep children safe and families intact around the 
nation. There is so much more to be done to ensure the safety of our 
children, and this provision will help the Center in its efforts to 
prevent crimes that are committed against them.
  The Protecting Our Children Comes First Act also increases Federal 
support of NCMEC programs to find missing children by allowing the U.S. 
Secret Service to provide forensic and investigative support to the 
NCMEC. In

[[Page 105]]

addition, it facilitates information sharing by allowing Federal 
authorities to share the facts or circumstances of sexual exploitation 
crimes against children with State authorities without a court order, 
and by allowing the NCMEC to make reports directly to State and local 
law enforcement officials instead of only through Federal agencies.
  I applaud the ongoing work of the NCMEC and hope both the Senate and 
the House of Representatives will support this effort to provide more 
Federal support for the Center to continue to find missing children and 
protect exploited children across the country.
  Finally, subtitle A of title II addresses the problems caused by 
housing juveniles who are prosecuted in the criminal justice system in 
adult correctional facilities. It assists the States in providing safe 
conditions for their confinement and appropriate access to educational, 
vocational, and health programs. Improving conditions for juveniles 
today will improve the public safety in the future, as juveniles who 
are not exposed to adult inmates have a lower likelihood of committing 
future crimes.
  As a Nation, we increasingly rely on adult facilities to house 
juveniles. Nearly all of our States house juveniles in adult jails and 
prisons, and only half maintain designated youthful offender housing 
units. I believe that there is a will in the States to improve 
conditions for these juveniles, but resources are often lacking. The 
Federal Government can play a useful role by providing funding to 
States that want to take account of the differences between juveniles 
and adults.
  Although many juvenile offenders serving time in adult prisons have 
committed extraordinarily serious offenses, others are there because of 
relatively minor crimes and will be released at a young age. Certainly, 
many of these juveniles can be convinced not to commit further crimes. 
The social and moral cost of not making that attempt is simply 
incalculable.
  Many scholars have questioned whether housing juvenile offenders with 
adult inmates serves our long-term interest in public safety. Multiple 
studies have shown that youth transferred to the adult system 
recidivate at higher rates and with more serious offenses than youth 
who have committed similar offenses but are retained in the juvenile 
justice system. We must ensure that juveniles are treated humanely in 
the criminal justice system to reduce the risks that upon release they 
will commit additional and more serious crimes. One of the ways we can 
do that is by helping States improve confinement conditions.
  Our bill creates a new incentive grant program for State and local 
governments and Indian tribes. These grants can be used for the 
following purposes related to juveniles under the jurisdiction of an 
adult criminal court: 1. alter existing correctional facilities, or 
develop separate facilities, to provide segregated facilities for them; 
2. provide orientation and ongoing training for correctional staff 
supervising them; 3. provide monitors who will report on their 
treatment; and 4. provide them with access to educational programs, 
vocational training, mental and physical health assessment and 
treatment, and drug treatment. Grants can also be used to seek 
alternatives to housing juveniles with adult inmates, including the 
expansion of juvenile facilities.
  It is important to note that States that choose not to house 
juveniles who are convicted as adults with adult inmates are still 
eligible for grants under this bill. For example, they could use the 
money to train staff, or to provide education or other program for 
juveniles, or to improve juvenile facilities.
  In addition to these grants, part 5 of subtitle II reauthorizes the 
Family Unity Demonstration Project, which provides funding for projects 
allowing eligible prisoners who are parents to live in structured, 
community-based centers with their young children. A study by the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics found that about two-third of incarcerated 
women were parents of children under 18 years old. According to the 
White House, on any given day, America is home to 1.5 million children 
of prisoners. And according to Prison Fellowship Industries, more than 
half of the juveniles in custody in the United States had an immediate 
family member behind bars. This is a serious problem that reauthorizing 
the Family Unity Demonstration Project will help to address.
  The remainder of title II includes a number of provisions designed to 
improve the safety and security of older Americans.
  During the 1990s, while overall crime rates dropped throughout the 
nation the rate of crime against seniors remained constant. In addition 
to the increased vulnerability of some seniors to violent crime, older 
Americans are increasingly targeted by swindlers looking to take 
advantage of them through telemarketing schemes, pension fraud, and 
health care fraud. We must strengthen the hand of law enforcement to 
combat those criminals who plunder the savings that older Americans 
have worked their lifetime to earn. Subtitle B of title II of our bill, 
the Seniors Safety Act of 2003, tries to do exactly that, through a 
comprehensive package of proposals to establish new protections and 
increase penalties for a wide variety of crimes against seniors.
  This legislation addresses the most prevalent crimes perpetrated 
against seniors, containing proposals to reduce health care fraud and 
abuse, combat nursing home fraud and abuse, prevent telemarketing 
fraud, and safeguard pension and employee benefit plans from fraud, 
bribery, and graft. In addition, this legislation would help seniors 
obtain restitution if their pension plans are defrauded.
  Many of the proposals in this legislation are just common sense. For 
example, we would authorize the Attorney General to block telephone 
service to people using it to commit telemarketing fraud. We would also 
establish a ``Better Business Bureau'' style clearinghouse at the 
Federal Trade Commission, so that senior citizens and their families 
could call and find out whether a telemarketer who was bothering them 
had a criminal record or had received past complaints.
  We would make it a new criminal offense to engage in multiple willful 
violations of the regulations or laws that protect nursing home 
residents. We would also protect employees at nursing homes who blow 
the whistle on the mistreatment of residents by giving them the power 
to bring a lawsuit for damages if they get fired as a result. And we 
would tell the Sentencing Commission that if you commit a crime against 
someone who is old and vulnerable, you should get a longer sentence.
  We want to fight health care fraud and pension fraud because these 
are benefits that older Americans have earned and that they count on 
everyday. We must do more to prevent crooks from robbing seniors of 
their security. That is why we want to create new criminal penalties 
for pension fraud and give law enforcement more tools to root out and 
stop health care fraud.
  The third title of the Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act 
contains important provisions to prevent and punish identify theft, a 
crime that victimizes thousands of Americans every year. Once a skilled 
scam artist gets his hands on a consumer's Social Security or bank 
account number, he can wreak unimaginable havoc on a family's finances.
  With society conducting more and more of its business electronically, 
the incidence of identity theft in America is on the rise. In 2001, the 
Federal Trade Commission consumer hotline received 86,000 complaints of 
identity theft. Through the first six months of 2002, it received 
70,000 such complaints. These complaints are mainly from people who 
have been hurt by identify theft, but thousands of others come from 
consumers worried about becoming an identity thief's next victim.
  Our bill would help identity theft victims restore their credit 
ratings and reclaim their good names. It gives victims the tools they 
need, such as the right to obtain relevant business records and the 
ability to have fraudulent charges blocked from reporting in their 
consumer credit reports. It also

[[Page 106]]

includes provisions designed to thwart identity theft, for example by 
requiring credit card companies to notify consumers of any change of 
address request on an existing credit account, by ensuring that credit 
card receipts no longer bear the expiration date or more than the last 
five digits of the customer's credit card number, and by entitling 
every citizen to a free credit report once per year upon request. 
Finally, it includes important provisions to prevent Social Security 
numbers from being sold, or published without express consent.
  Title III also represents the next step in Senate Democrats' 
continuing efforts to afford dignity and recognition to victims of 
crime. It provides for comprehensive reform of the Federal law to 
establish enhanced rights and protections for victims of Federal crime. 
Among other things, it provides crime victims the right to consult with 
the prosecution prior to detention hearings and the entry of plea 
agreements, and generally requires the courts to give greater 
consideration to the views and interests of the victim at all stages of 
the criminal justice process. Responding to concerns raised by victims 
of the Oklahoma City bombing, the bill would provide standing for the 
prosecutor and the victim to assert the right of the victim to attend 
and observe the trial.
  Assuring that victims are provided their statutorily guaranteed 
rights is a critical concern for all those involved in the 
administration of justice. That is why the bill establishes an 
administrative authority in the Department of Justice to receive and 
investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the 
part of criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of 
Justice employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the 
treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including 
suspension or termination of employment.
  In addition to these improvements to the Federal system, the bill 
proposes several programs to help States provide better assistance for 
victims of State crimes. These programs would improve compliance with 
State victim's rights laws, promote the development of state-of-the-art 
notification systems to keep victims informed of case developments and 
important dates on a timely and efficient basis, and encourage further 
experimentation with the community-based restorative justice model in 
the juvenile court setting. The bill also provides assistance for 
shelters and transitional housing for victims of domestic violence.
  Of particular significance, title III would eliminate the cap on 
distributions from the Crime Victims Fund, which has prevented millions 
of dollars in Fund deposits from reaching victims and supporting 
essential services. With violent crime on the increase and State 
governments struggling to overcome growing budget deficits, crime 
victim compensation and assistance programs are facing dire threats to 
their fiscal stability. We should not be imposing artificial caps on 
spending from the Crime Victims Fund while substantial needs remain 
unmet. Our bill proposes replacing the cap with a self-regulating 
formula, which would ensure stability and protection of Fund assets, 
while allowing more money to go out to the States for victim 
compensation and assistance.
  While we have greatly improved our crime victims programs and made 
advances in recognizing crime victims rights, we still have more to do. 
The Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act would help make 
victims' rights a reality.
  Title IV of the bill includes proposals for supporting Federal, State 
and local law enforcement and promoting the effective administration of 
justice.
  An important element of this effort is the COPS program. As noted 
earlier, the Bush Administration has proposed to cut the COPS program 
by nearly 80 percent, despite the success of this program in putting 
115,000 new police officers on the beat since 1994. Title IV extends 
the COPS program through fiscal year 2008, authorizing funding to 
deploy up to 50,000 additional police officers, 10,000 additional 
prosecutors, and 10,000 defense attorneys for indigents. It also 
authorizes $15 million per year for five years to help rural 
communities retain officers hired through the COPS program for an 
additional year.
  In addition, title IV includes the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits 
Act, which would effectively erase any distinction between traumatic 
and occupational injuries when surviving families apply to the U.S. 
Department of Justice Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Program. 
The PSOB fund currently pays just over $260,000 to families of 
firefighters, police officers and emergency medical technicians who die 
in the line of duty. The survivors of emergency responders who die of 
heart attacks while performing in the line of duty, however, are 
ineligible to collect benefits. The Hometown Heroes bill would fix the 
loophole in the PSOB Program to ensure that the survivors of public 
safety officers who die of heart attacks or strokes in the line of duty 
or within 24 hours of a triggering effect while on duty, regardless of 
whether a traumatic injury is present at the time of the heart attack 
or stroke, are eligible to receive financial assistance.
  The families of these brave public servants deserve to participate in 
the PSOB Program if their loved ones die of a heart attack or other 
cardiac-related ailments while selflessly protecting us from harm. It 
is time for Congress to show its support and appreciation for these 
extraordinarily brave and heroic public safety officers by passing the 
Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act.
  Title IV would also correct a disparity in the law that denies 
Federal prosecutors the same retirement benefits as other Federal law 
enforcement officers. These lawyers, who are more and more often on the 
front lines in the war on terrorism, deserve the same benefits as the 
other men and women with whom they work.
  Also included in title IV of the bill is the FBI Reform Act of 2003, 
which stems from the lessons learned during a series of Judiciary 
Committee hearings on oversight of the FBI that I chaired beginning in 
June 2001. Even more recently, the important changes which are being 
made under the FBI's new leadership after the September 11 attacks and 
the new powers granted the FBI by the USA PATRIOT Act have resulted in 
FBI reform becoming a pressing matter of national importance.
  Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks last 
fall, we have relied on the FBI to detect and prevent acts of 
catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people 
and the institutions of our country. The men and women of the FBI are 
performing this task with great professionalism at home and abroad. I 
think that we have all felt safer as a result of the full mobilization 
of the FBI's dedicated Special Agents, its expert support personnel, 
and its exceptional technical capabilities. We owe the men and women of 
the FBI our thanks.
  For decades the FBI has been outstanding law enforcement agency and a 
vital member of the United States intelligence community. As our 
hearings and recent events have shown, however, there is room for 
improvement at the FBI. We must face the mistakes of the past, and make 
the changes needed to ensure that they are not repeated. In meeting the 
international terrorist challenge, the Congress has an opportunity and 
obligation to strengthen the institutional fiber of the FBI based on 
lessons learned from recent problems the Bureau has experienced.
  The view is not mine alone. When Director Bob Mueller testified at 
his confirmation hearings in July 2001, he forthrightly acknowledged 
``that the Bureau's remarkable legacy of service and accomplishment has 
been tarnished by some serious and highly publicized problems in recent 
years. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the FBI lab, Wen Ho Lee, Robert Hanssen and 
the McVeigh documents--these familiar names and events remind us all 
that the FBI is far from perfect and that the next director faces 
significant management and administrative challenges.'' Since then, the 
Judiciary Committee has forged a constructive partnership with Director 
Mueller to get the FBI back on track.

[[Page 107]]

  Congress sometimes has followed a hands-off approach about the FBI. 
But with the FBI's new increased power, with our increased reliance on 
them to stop terrorism, and with the increased funding requested in the 
President's budget will come increased scrutiny. Until the Bureau's 
problems are resolved and new challenges overcome, we have to take a 
hands-on approach. Indeed our hearing and other oversight activities 
have highlighted tangible steps the Congress should take in an FBI 
Reform bill as part of this hands-on approach. Among other things, 
these hearings demonstrated the need to extend whistleblower 
protection, end the double standard for discipline of senior FBI 
executives, and enhance the FBI's internal security program to protect 
against espionage as occurred in the Hanssen case.
  When Director Mueller announced the first stage of his FBI 
reorganization in December 2001, he stressed the importance of taking a 
comprehensive look at the FBI's missions for the future, and Deputy 
Attorney General Thompson's office has told us that the Attorney 
General's management review of the FBI is considering this matter. 
Director Mueller has stated that the second phase of FBI 
reorganizations will be part of a ``comprehensive plan to address not 
only the new challenges of terrorism, but to modernize and streamline 
the Bureau's more traditional functions.'' Thus, through our hearings, 
our oversight efforts, and the statements and efforts of the new 
management team at the FBI, a list of challenges facing the FBI has 
been developed.
  Our bill addresses each of these challenges. It strengthens 
whistleblower protection for FBI employees and protects them from 
retaliation for reporting wrongdoing. It addresses the issue of a 
double standard for discipline of senior executives by eliminating the 
disparity in authorized punishments between Senior Executive Service 
members and other federal employees. It establishes an FBI 
Counterintelligence Polygraph Program for screening personnel in 
exceptionally sensitive positions with specific safeguards, and an FBI 
Career Security Program, which would bring the FBI into line with other 
U.S. intelligence agencies that have strong career security 
professional cadres whose skills and leadership are dedicated to the 
protection of agency information, personnel, and facilities. It also 
requires a set of reports that would enable Congress to engage the 
Executive branch in a constructive dialogue building a more effective 
FBI for the future.
  The FBI Reform Act of 2003 is designed to strengthen the FBI as an 
institution that has a unique role as both a law enforcement agency and 
a member of the intelligence community. As the Judiciary Committee 
continues its oversight work and more is learned about recent FBI 
performance, additional legislation may prove necessary. Especially 
important will be the lessons from the attacks of September 11, 2001, 
the anthrax attacks, and implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and 
other counterterrorism measures. Strengthening the FBI cannot be 
accomplished overnight, but with this legislation, we take an important 
step into the future.
  In addition to protecting, FBI whistleblowers, title IV of this bill 
provides new and important protections for other whistleblowers who 
provide information to Congress.
  The 107th Congress was one of rejuvenated bipartisan oversight. On 
the Judiciary Committee we convened the first series of comprehensive 
bipartisan FBI oversight hearings in decades after I assumed the 
Chairmanship. The Joint Intelligence Committee conducted bipartisan 
hearings to ascertain what shortcomings on the part of our intelligence 
community need to be corrected so as not the allow the 9-11 terrorist 
attacks to recur. The Senate Banking Committee conducted extensive 
oversight of the SEC and its relationship with the accounting industry, 
to ascertain whether a new regulatory scheme was required. Both the 
Senate and House Judiciary Committees are still attempting to ascertain 
how the new powers we provided in the USA PATRIOT Act are being used. 
These are only a few examples.
  A vital part of the increased oversight was the courage of the 
whistleblowers who provided information. Their revelations have led to 
important reforms. The Enron scandal and the subsequent hearing led to 
the most extensive corporate reform legislation in decades, including 
the criminal provisions and the first ever corporate whistleblower 
protections, which I authored. The testimony of the rank and file FBI 
agents that we heard on the Judiciary Committee helped us to craft 
bipartisan FBI reform legislation. The same day as Coleen Rowley's 
nationally televised testimony before the Judiciary Committee, 
President Bush not only reversed his previous opposition to 
establishing a new cabinet level Department of Homeland Security, but 
gave a national address calling for the largest government 
reorganization in 50 years. In the last year we have learned once again 
that the public as a whole can benefit from a lone voice. Indeed, Time 
Magazine recognized the courage of these whistleblowers by naming them 
the ``People of the Year'' for 2002.
  Unfortunately, the people who very rarely benefit from these 
revelations are the whistleblowers themselves. We have heard testimony 
in oversight hearings on the Judiciary Committee that there is quite 
often retaliation against those who raise public awareness about 
problems within large organizations even to Congress. Sometimes the 
retaliation is overt, sometimes it is more subtle and invidious, but it 
is almost always there. The law needs to protect the people who risk so 
much to protect us and create a culture that encourages employees to 
report waste, fraud, and mismanagement.
  For those who provide information to Congress, that protection is a 
hollow promise. On one hand, the law is very clear that it is illegal 
to interfere with or deny, ``the right of employees, individually or 
collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to 
furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or 
Member thereof . . .'' Amazingly, however, this simple provision is a 
right without a remedy. Employees who are retaliated against for 
providing information to Congress cannot pursue any avenue of redress 
to protect their statutory rights. The only exception to this applies 
to employees of publicly traded companies, who are now covered by the 
whistleblower provision included in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that we 
passed last year. Thus, under current law, government whistleblowers 
reporting to Congress have less protection than private industry 
whistleblowers.
  Title IV would correct this anomaly by providing government employees 
that come to Congress with the right to bring an action in court when 
they suffer the type of retaliation already prohibited under the law. 
Thus, it does not create new statutory rights, but merely provides a 
statutory remedy for existing law. That way, we can promise future 
whistleblowers who come before Congress that their rights to access the 
legislative branch is not an illusion. We can also assure the public at 
large that our efforts at Congressional oversight and improving the 
functions of government will be effective. This legislation is strongly 
supported by leading whistleblower groups, including the National 
Whistleblower Center and the Government Accountability Project.
  Title IV of the bill also aims to improve the effective 
administration of justice by offering a two-pronged attack on sexual 
assault crime in America. First, it adds more Federal resources for 
States and for the first time, makes those resources directly available 
to local governments as well, so that they may eliminate the backlog of 
untested DNA samples, and in particular, the troubling backlog of 
untested rape kits. Second, because tapping the potential of DNA 
technology requires more than eliminating existing backlogs, the bill 
provides increased Federal support for sexual assault examiner 
programs, DNA training of law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, 
and updating the national DNA database. To ensure that these grants are 
effective, the bill heightens the standards for DNA collection and

[[Page 108]]

maintenance, and requires the Department of Justice to promulgate 
national privacy guidelines. The bill also authorizes the issuance of 
John Doe DNA indictments for Federal sexual assault crimes, which toll 
the applicable statute of limitations and permit prosecution whenever a 
DNA match is made.
  Congress began to attack the problem of the DNA backlog when it 
passed the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. That 
legislation authorized $170 million over four years for grants to 
States to increase the capacity of their forensic labs and to carry out 
DNA testing of backlogged evidence. Despite the new law and some 
Federal funding, the persistent backlogs nationwide make it plain that 
more must be done to help the States. Our bill takes the next step and 
provides more comprehensive assistance so that the criminal justice 
system can harness the full power of DNA.
  A significant problem that arose during Special Prosecutor Kenneth 
Starr's investigation of President Clinton was the loss of 
confidentiality that had previously attached to the important work of 
the U.S. Secret Service. The Department of Justice and Treasury and 
even a former Republican President advise that the safety of future 
Presidents may be jeopardized by forcing U.S. Secret Service agents to 
breach the confidentiality they need to do their job by testifying 
before a grand jury. I trust the Secret Service on this issue; they are 
the experts with the mission of protecting the lives of the President 
and other high-level elected official and visiting dignitaries. I also 
have confidence in the judgment of former President Bush, who has 
written, ``I feel very strongly that [Secret Service] agents should not 
be made to appear in court to discuss that which they might or might 
not have seen or heard.''
  Section 4502 of the Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act 
provides a reasonable and limited protective function privilege so 
future Secret Service agents are able to maintain the confidentiality 
they say they need to protect the lives of the President, Vice 
President and visiting heads of state.
  Title V of this bill would create new treatment and prevention 
programs to reduce drug abuse, and reauthorize existing successful 
ones. Treatment and prevention efforts are often overshadowed by law 
enforcement needs. Indeed, a recent study by the Center on Addiction 
and Substance Abuse showed that of every dollar States spent on 
substance abuse and addiction, only four cents went to prevention and 
treatment. The States and the Federal government have undeniably 
important law enforcement obligations, but we must do more to balance 
those obligations with farsighted efforts to prevent drug crimes from 
happening in the first place.
  Heroin is an increasing problem in my State. In other States, meth-
amphetamines or other drugs present a growing challenge. This 
legislation will help States address their most pressing drug problems, 
and places a particular emphasis on States that may not have been able 
to address their treatment and prevention needs in the past. Indeed, 
among other provisions, the bill offers funding for rural States like 
Vermont to establish or enhance treatment centers. It instructs the 
Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment to make grants to 
public and nonprofit private entities that provide treatment and are 
approved by State experts. This will allow the Vermont agencies looking 
to provide heroin treatment--or to prevent heroin abuse in the first 
place, to acquire Federal funding to help in their efforts.
  The bill also authorizes funding for residential treatment centers 
that treat mothers who are addicted to heroin, methamphetamine, or 
other drugs. This will help mothers, and the children who depend on 
them to rebuild their lives, it will keep families together. And I hope 
it will help avoid further stories like one that appeared in the 
Burlington Free Press in February 2001, in which a young mother told a 
reporter how heroin ``made it easier for [her] to take care of [her] 
kids.''
  The bill also would fund drug treatment programs for juveniles, who 
can see their lives quickly deteriorate under the influence of drugs. 
This is why I have worked to provide Vermont with funding to establish 
a long-term residential treatment facility for adolescents. I hope to 
continue that effort through this bill, in the hope that we may be able 
to prevent future tragedies.
  We also would reauthorize substance abuse treatment in Federal 
prisons. It is critical that our prisons be drug-free, both because 
lawbreaking within our correctional system is a national embarrassment, 
and because prisoners who are released while still addicted to drugs 
are far more likely to commit future crimes than prisoners who are 
released sober. At the same time we are extending the `carrot' of 
treatment opportunities, we also authorize grants to States and 
localities for programs supporting comprehensive drug testing of 
criminal justice populations, and to establish appropriate 
interventions to illegal drug use for offender populations.
  Among other additional provisions, we would extend the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Program, and authorize grants to establish 
methamphetamine prevention and treatment pilot programs in rural areas.
  I am particularly proud of title VI of the bill--the Innocence 
Protection Act, IPA, of 2003. For nearly three years, I have been 
working hard with members on both sides of the aisle, and in both 
houses of Congress, to address the horrendous problem of innocent 
people being condemned to death. The IPA represents the fruits of those 
efforts. This landmark legislation proposes a number of basic, 
commonsense reforms to our criminal justice system, aimed at reducing 
the risk that innocent people will be put to death.
  We have come many miles since I first introduced the IPA in February 
2000, along with four Democratic co-sponsors. There is now a broad 
consensus across the country--among Democrats and Republicans, 
supporters and opponents of the death penalty, liberals and 
conservatives, that our death penalty machinery is broken. We know that 
the nightmare of innocent people on death row is not just a dream, but 
a frequently recurring reality. Since the early 1970s, more than 100 
people who were sentenced to death have been released, not because of 
technicalities, but because they were innocent. Goodness only knows how 
many were not so lucky.
  These are not just numbers; these are real people whose lives were 
ruined. Anthony Porter came within two days of execution in 1998; he 
was exonerated and released from prison only because a class of 
journalism students investigated his case and identified the real 
killer. Ray Krone spent ten years in prison, including three on death 
row; he was released last year after DNA testing exculpated him and 
pointed to another man as the real killer. These are just two of the 
many tragedies we learn of every year.
  Today, Federal judges are voicing concern about the death penalty. 
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has warned that ``the system may well be 
allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.'' Justice Ginsberg 
has supported a state moratorium on the death penalty. Another 
respected jurist, Sixth Circuit Judge Gilbert Merritt, has referred to 
the capital punishment system as ``broken.''
  We can all agree that there is a grave problem. The good news is, 
there is also a broad consensus on one important step we must take, we 
can pass the Innocence Protection Act.
  At the close of the 107th Congress, the IPA was cosponsored by a 
substantial bipartisan majority of the House and by 32 Senators from 
both sides of the aisle. In addition, a version of the bill had been 
reported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It 
is that version of the bill that we introduce today as title VI of the 
Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act.
  What would the IPA do? In short, it proposes two minimum steps that 
we need to take, not to make the system perfect, but simply to reduce 
what is currently an unacceptably high risk of error. First, we need to 
make good on

[[Page 109]]

the promise of modern technology in the form of DNA testing. Second, we 
need to make good on the constitutional promise of competent counsel.
  DNA testing comes first because it is proven and effective. We all 
know that DNA testing is an extraordinary tool for uncovering the 
truth, whatever the truth may be. It is the fingerprint of the 21st 
Century. Prosecutors across the country rightly use it to prove guilt. 
By the same token, it should also be used to do what it is equally 
scientifically reliable to do, prove innocence.
  Where there is DNA evidence, it can show us conclusively, even years 
after a conviction, where mistakes have been made. And there is no good 
reason not to use it.
  Allowing testing does not deprive the state of its ability to present 
its case, and under a reasonable scheme for the preservation and 
testing of DNA evidence, the practical costs, burdens and delays 
involved are relatively small.
  The Innocence Protection Act would therefore provide improved access 
to DNA testing for people who claim that they have been wrongfully 
convicted. It would also prevent the premature destruction of 
biological evidence that could hold the key to clearing an innocent 
person and, as we recently saw in Ray Krone's case, identifying the 
real culprit.
  But DNA testing addresses only the tip of the iceberg of the problem 
of wrongful convictions. In most cases, there is no DNA evidence to be 
tested, just as in most cases, there are no fingerprints. In the vast 
majority of death row exonerations, no DNA testing has or could have 
been involved.
  So the broad and growing consensus on death penalty reform has 
another top priority. All the statistics and evidence show that the 
single most frequent cause of wrongful convictions is inadequate 
defense representation at trial. By far the most important reform we 
can undertake is to ensure minimum standards of competency and funding 
for capital defense.
  Under the IPA, States may choose to work with the federal government 
to improve the systems by which they appoint and compensate lawyers in 
death cases. These States would receive an infusion of new Federal 
grant money, but they would also open themselves up to a set of 
controls that are designed to ensure that their systems truly meet 
basic standards. In essence, the bill offers the States extra money for 
quality and accountability.
  A State may also decline to participate in the new grant program, In 
that case, the money that would otherwise be available to the state 
would be used to fund one or more organizations that provide capital 
representation in that state. One way or another, the bill would 
improve the quality of appointed counsel in capital cases.
  This is a reform that does not in any way hinder good, effective law 
enforcement. More money is good for the States. More openness and 
accountability is good for everyone. And better lawyering makes the 
trial process far less prone to error.
  We can never guarantee that no innocent person will be convicted. But 
surely when people in this country are put on trial for their lives, 
they should be defended by lawyers who meet reasonable standards of 
competence and who have sufficient funds to investigate the facts and 
prepare thoroughly for trial. That bare minimum is all that the counsel 
provisions in the IPA seek to achieve.
  The Innocence Protection Act addresses grave and urgent problems with 
moderate, fine-tuned practical solutions. It has passed out of 
Committee in the Senate and is supported by a majority of the House. 
Justice demands that we pass it before more lives are ruined.
  Title VII of the bill includes various proposals for strengthening 
the Federal criminal laws, including, in subtitle A, the Anti-Atrocity 
Alien Deportation Act of 2003. This bill would close loopholes in our 
immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights 
abusers to enter and remain in this country. I am appalled that this 
country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in 
foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent 
civilians. A recent report by Amnesty International claims that nearly 
150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified living here, and 
warns that this number may be as high as 1,000.
  The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in 
this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal 
and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation. We have 
unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too 
long. We should not let this situation continue. We need to focus the 
attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport 
those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe 
harbor in the United States.
  The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar 
to human rights abusers who seek to exploit loopholes in current law. 
The Immigration and Nationality Act currently provides that 1. 
Participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 
1933 to May 8, 1945, 2. aliens who engaged in genocide, and 3. aliens 
who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are 
inadmissible to the United States and deportable. This legislation 
would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to 1. Add 
new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United 
States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' and 2. remove 
limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom.''
  The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and 
deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the 
current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that 
term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on 
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. For clarity and 
consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the 
Federal criminal code, which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. 
obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden 
the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in 
genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has 
ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This 
broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more 
appropriate range of levels of complicity.
  Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, limits its application to 
foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the 
last 24 months. Our bill would delete reference to prohibited conduct 
occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not 
consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote 
religious freedom throughout the world.
  Changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers 
seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the 
solution. We also need effective enforcement, which I believe we can 
obtain by updating the mission of the Justice Department's Office of 
Special Investigations, or OSI. Our country has long provided the 
template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The 
OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute, and remove Nazi war 
criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims 
under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective 
enforcement. Since the OSI's inception in 1979, over 60 Nazi 
persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 have been 
removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied 
entry.
  The OSI was created by the power of Attorney General Civiletti almost 
35 years after the end of World War II and it is only authorized to 
track Nazi war criminals. As any prosecutor, or, in my case, former 
prosecutor, knows instinctively, delays make documentary and 
testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the 
hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades 
before tracking

[[Page 110]]

down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this 
country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our 
current immigration policies and enforcement. No war criminal should 
ever come to believe that he is going to find safe harbor in the United 
States.
  The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would for the first time 
provide statutory authorization for the OSI within the Department of 
Justice, with authority to denaturalize any alien who has participated 
in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. 
The bill would also expand the OSI's jurisdiction to deal with any 
alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide 
abroad, not just Nazis. Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war 
criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would 
not be diverted from the OSI's current mission. Additional resources 
are authorized in the bill for OSI's expanded duties.
  Title VII of the Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act also 
includes a proposal to increase the maximum penalties for violations of 
three existing statutes that protect the cultural and archaeological 
history of the American people, particularly Native Americans. The 
United States Sentencing Commission recommended the statutory changes 
contained in this proposal, which would complement the Commission's 
strengthening of Federal sentencing guidelines to ensure more stringent 
penalties for criminals who steal from our public lands. Passage of 
this legislation would demonstrate Congress' commitment to preserving 
our nation's history and our cultural heritage.
  The Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act is a comprehensive 
and realistic set of proposals for assisting local enforcement, 
preventing crime, protecting our children and senior citizens, and 
assisting the victims of crime. I look forward to working on a 
bipartisan basis for passage of as much of this bill as possible during 
the 108th Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003


                      Section-By-Section Analysis

      TITLE I--COMBATING TERRORISM AND ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY

                Subtitle A--Supporting First Responders

       Sec. 1101. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 1102. Purpose. Purpose in support of this subtitle.
       Sec. 1103. First Responders Partnership Grant Program for 
     public safety officers. Authorizes grants to States, units of 
     local government, and Indian tribes to support public safety 
     officers in their efforts to protect homeland security and 
     prevent and respond to acts of terrorism.
       Sec. 1104. Applications. Requires the Director of the 
     Bureau of Justice Assistance to promulgate regulations 
     specifying the form and information to be included in 
     submitting an application for a grant under this subtitle.
       Sec. 1105. Definitions. Defines terms used in this 
     subtitle.
       Sec. 1106. Authorization of appropriations. Authorizes $4 
     billion for each fiscal year through FY2005 to carry out this 
     subtitle.

                      Subtitle B--Border Security

       Sec. 1201. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Safe Borders Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 1202. Authorization of appropriations for hiring 
     additional INS personnel. Authorizes such sums as may be 
     necessary for the INS to hire an additional 250 inspectors 
     and associated support staff, and an additional 250 
     investigative staff and associated support staff, during each 
     fiscal year through FY2007.
       Sec. 1203. Authorization of appropriations for improvements 
     in technology for improving border security. Authorizes $250 
     million to the INS for the purposes of making improvements in 
     technology for improving border security and facilitating the 
     flow of commerce and persons at ports of entry, including 
     improving and expanding programs for preenrollment and 
     preclearance.
       Sec. 1204. Report on border security improvements. Directs 
     the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress detailing 
     all steps the Department of Justice has taken to implement 
     the increases in border security personnel and improvements 
     in border security technology and equipment authorized in the 
     USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56) and the Enhanced Border 
     Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (Pub. L. 107-173). The 
     report shall also include the Attorney General's analysis of 
     what additional personnel and other resources, if any, are 
     needed to improve security at U.S. borders, particularly the 
     U.S.-Canada border.

              Subtitle C--Military Tribunals Authorization

       Sec. 1301. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 1302. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this subtitle.
       Sec. 1303. Establishment of extraordinary tribunals. 
     Authorizes the President to establish tribunals to try non-
     U.S. persons who are al Qaeda members (and persons aiding and 
     abetting al Qaeda in terrorist activities against the United 
     States); are apprehended in Afghanistan, apprehended fleeing 
     from Afghanistan, or apprehended in or fleeing from any other 
     place where there is armed conflict involving the U.S. Armed 
     Forces; and are not prisoners of war, as defined by the 
     Geneva Conventions. Tribunals may adjudicate violations of 
     the laws of war targeted against U.S. persons. The Secretary 
     of Defense is charged with promulgating rules of evidence and 
     procedure for the tribunals.
       Sec. 1304. Procedural requirements. Describes minimum 
     procedural safeguards for tribunals established under this 
     subtitle, including that the accused be presumed innocent 
     until proven guilty, and that proof of guilt be established 
     beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial proceedings will generally 
     be accessible to the public with limited exceptions for 
     demonstrable public safety concerns. Convictions may be 
     appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; 
     any decisions of that court regarding proceedings of 
     tribunals are subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court by 
     writ of certiorari.
       Sec. 1305. Detention. Authorizes detention of individuals 
     who are subject to a tribunal under this subtitle. In order 
     to detain an individual under the authority of this section, 
     the President must certify that the U.S. is in armed conflict 
     with al Qaeda or Taliban forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere, 
     or that an investigation, prosecution or post-trial 
     proceeding against the detainee is ongoing. Detention 
     determinations and the conditions of detention are subject to 
     review by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
       Sec. 1306. Sense of the Congress. Calls for the President 
     to seek the cooperation of U.S. allies and other nations in 
     the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for 
     the September 11 attacks. It also calls for the President to 
     use multilateral institutions to the fullest extent possible 
     in carrying out such investigations and prosecutions.
       Sec. 1307. Definitions. Defines terms used in this 
     subtitle.
       Sec. 1308. Termination of Authority. Authority under this 
     subtitle ends on December 31, 2005.

          Subtitle D--Anti Terrorist Hoaxes and False Reports

       Sec. 1401 Short title. Contains the short title, the ``Anti 
     Terrorist Hoax and False Report Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 1402. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this subtitle.
       Sec. 1403. Hoaxes, false reports and reimbursement. Sets 
     penalties for (1) knowingly conveying false information 
     concerning an attempt to violate 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 175 
     (relating to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical 
     weapons), 831 (relating to nuclear material), or 2332a 
     (relating to weapons of mass destruction), under 
     circumstances where such information may reasonably be 
     believed; and (2) transferring any device or material, 
     knowing or intending that it resembles a nuclear, chemical, 
     biological, or other weapon of mass destruction, and under 
     circumstances where it may reasonably be believed to involve 
     an attempt to violate 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 175, 229, 831,or 
     2332a. Convicted offenders shall be ordered to reimburse all 
     victims and government agencies for losses and expenses 
     incurred as a result of the offense. Authorizes civil actions 
     by victims and by U.S. Attorney General.

          Subtitle E--Amendments to Federal Antiterrorism Laws

       Sec. 1501. Attacks against mass transit clarification of 
     definition. Clarifies that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1993, which 
     proscribes terrorist attacks against mass transportation 
     systems, extends to attacks against ``any carriage or other 
     contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of 
     transportation on land, water, or through the air''.
       Sec. 1502. Release or detention of a material witness. 
     Clarifies the conditions under which individuals can be 
     arrested and detained as material witnesses in Federal 
     criminal cases and grand jury investigations.
       Sec. 1503. Clarification of sunset provision in USA PATRIOT 
     Act. Clarifies that after sunset of certain provisions in the 
     USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56), pursuant to section 224(a) 
     of that Act, the law shall revert to what it was before that 
     Act was enacted.

          TITLE II--PROTECTING AMERICA'S CHILDREN AND SENIORS

                     Subtitle A--Children's Safety

                  Part I--National Amber Alert Network

       Sec. 2111. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003''.

[[Page 111]]

       Sec. 2112. National coordination of AMBER Alert 
     Communications Network. Requires the Attorney General to 
     assign an AMBER Alert Coordinator of the Department of 
     Justice to act as the national coordinator of the AMBER Alert 
     communications network regarding abducted children. The 
     Coordinator's duties include: (1) seeking to eliminate gaps 
     in the network; and (2) working with States to ensure 
     regional coordination.
       Sec. 2113. Minimum standards for issuance and dissemination 
     of alerts through AMBER Alert Communications Network. Directs 
     the AMBER Alert Coordinator to establish minimum standards 
     for the issuance of alerts and for the extent of their 
     dissemination (limited to the geographic areas most likely to 
     facilitate the recovery of the abducted child).
       Sec. 2114. Grant program for notification and 
     communications systems along highways for recovery of 
     abducted children. Authorizes grants to States for the 
     development or enhancement of notification or communications 
     systems along highways for alerts and other information for 
     the recovery of abducted children.
       Sec. 2115. Grant program for support of AMBER Alert 
     communications plans. Authorizes grants to States for the 
     development or enhancement of education, training, and law 
     enforcement programs and activities for the support of AMBER 
     Alert communications plans.

 Part 2--Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of 
                             Children Today

       Sec. 2121. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation 
     of Children Today Act of 2003'' or ``PROTECT Act''.
       Sec. 2122. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this part.
       Sec. 2123. Certain activities relating to material 
     constituting or containing child pornography. Amends 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2252A, regarding activities relating to material 
     constituting or containing child pornography, to prohibit: 
     (1) promoting, distributing, or soliciting material through 
     the mails or in commerce in a manner that conveys the 
     impression that the material contains an obscene visual 
     depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; 
     or (2) knowingly distributing to a minor any such visual 
     depiction that has been transported in commerce, or that was 
     produced using materials that have been so transported, for 
     purposes of inducing a minor to participate in illegal 
     activity.
       Sec. 2124. Admissibility of evidence. On motion of the 
     Government, and except for good cause shown, certain 
     identifying information of minors depicted in child 
     pornography shall be inadmissible in any prosecution of such 
     an act.
       Sec. 2125. Definitions. Adds new definitions for 
     interpretation of Federal criminal laws regarding sexual 
     exploitation and other abuse of children.
       Sec. 2126. Recordkeeping requirements. Increases penalties 
     for violation of recordkeeping requirements applicable to 
     producers of certain sexually explicit materials.
       Sec. 2127. Extraterritorial production of child pornography 
     for distribution in the United States. Sets penalties for 
     employing or coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit 
     conduct outside of the United States for the purpose of 
     producing a visual depiction of such conduct and transporting 
     it to the United States.
       Sec. 2128. Civil remedies. Authorizes civil remedies for 
     offenses relating to material constituting or containing 
     child pornography.
       Sec. 2129. Enhanced penalties for recidivists. Increases 
     penalties for certain recidivists who commit offenses 
     involving sexual exploitation and other abuse of children.
       Sec. 2130. Sentencing enhancements for interstate travel to 
     engage in sexual act with a juvenile. Directs Sentencing 
     Commission to ensure that guideline penalties are adequate in 
     cases involving interstate travel to engage in a sexual act 
     with a juvenile.
       Sec. 2131. Miscellaneous provisions. Directs the Attorney 
     General to appoint 25 additional trial attorneys to focus on 
     the investigation and prosecution of Federal child 
     pornography laws. Directs the Sentencing Commission to ensure 
     that the guidelines are adequate to deter and punish 
     violations of offenses proscribed in section 2123 of this 
     Act.

    Part 3--Reauthorization of the National Center for Missing and 
                           Exploited Children

       Sec. 2141. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 2142. Annual grant to the National Center for Missing 
     and Exploited Children. Doubles the annual grant to the 
     National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) 
     from $10 million to $20 million and extends funding through 
     FY2006.
       Sec. 2143. Authorization of appropriations. Amends the 
     Missing Children's Assistance Act to reauthorize the 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary through FY2006.
       Sec. 2144. Forensic and investigative support of missing 
     and exploited children. Authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to 
     provide forensic and investigative support to the NCMEC to 
     assist in efforts to find missing children.
       Sec. 2145. Creation of a Cyber-Tipline. Amends the Missing 
     Children's Assistance Act to coordinate the operation of a 
     Cyber-Tipline to provide online users an effective means of 
     reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in the 
     areas of distribution of child pornography, online enticement 
     of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution.
       Sec. 2146. Service provider reporting of child pornography 
     and related information. Amends 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13032, which 
     requires providers of electronic communications and remote 
     computing services to report apparent offenses that involve 
     child pornography. Under current law, communications 
     providers must report to the NCMEC when the provider obtains 
     knowledge of facts or circumstances from which a violation of 
     sexual exploitation crimes against children occurs. The NCMEC 
     then gives the information to Federal agencies designated by 
     the Attorney General. This section authorizes Federal 
     authorities to share the information with State authorities 
     without a court order and also gives the NCMEC the power to 
     make reports directly to State and local law enforcement. 
     This section also clarifies that such tips must come from 
     non-governmental sources, so as to prevent law enforcement 
     from circumventing the statutory requirements of the 
     Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
       Sec. 2147. Contents disclosure of stored communications. 
     Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2702 to be consistent with the scope of 
     reports under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13032(d), which provides that, 
     in addition to the required information that is reported to 
     NCMEC by communications providers, the reports may include 
     additional information, such as the identity of a subscriber 
     who sent a message containing child pornography.

     Part 4--National Child Protection and Volunteers for Children 
                              Improvement

       Sec. 2151. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``National Child Protection and Volunteers for Children 
     Improvement Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 2152. Definitions. Defines new terms in the National 
     Child Protection Act of 1993.
       Sec. 2153. Strengthening and enforcing the National Child 
     Protection Act and the Volunteers for Children Act. Amends 
     the National Child Protection Act to allow qualified State 
     programs that provide care for children, the elderly, or 
     individuals with disabilities to apply directly to the 
     Department of Justice to request national criminal background 
     checks, which shall be returned within 15 business days. A 
     qualified entity in a State that does not have a qualified 
     State program can, one year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, also apply directly to the Department for a 
     background check, which shall be returned within 20 business 
     days.
       Sec. 2154. Dissemination of information. Establishes an 
     office within the Department of Justice to perform nationwide 
     criminal background checks for qualified entities.
       Sec. 2155. Fees. Caps fees for national criminal background 
     checks for persons who volunteer with a qualified entity ($5) 
     and persons who are employed by, or apply for a position 
     with, a qualified entity ($18).
       Sec. 2156. Strengthening State fingerprint technology. 
     Directs the Attorney General to establish model programs in 
     each State for the purpose of improving fingerprinting 
     technology. Programs shall grant to each State funds to (1) 
     purchase Live-Scan fingerprint technology and a State vehicle 
     to make such technology mobile, or (2) purchase electric 
     fingerprint imaging machines for use throughout the State to 
     send fingerprint images to the Attorney General to conduct 
     background checks. Additional funds shall be provided to each 
     State to hire personnel to provide information and training 
     regarding the requirements for input of criminal and 
     disposition data into the National Criminal History 
     Background Check System (NICS).
       Sec. 2157. Privacy protections. Establishes privacy 
     protections for information derived as a result of a national 
     criminal fingerprint background check request under the 
     National Child Protection Act of 1993.
       Sec. 2158. Authorization of appropriations. Authorizes $100 
     million through FY2004, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     the next four fiscal years.

         Part 5--Children's Confinement Conditions Improvement

       Sec. 2161. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this part.
       Sec. 2162. Purpose. Legislative purpose in support of this 
     part.
       Sec. 2163. Definition. Defines term used in this part.
       Sec. 2164. Juvenile Safe Incarceration Grant Program. 
     Authorizes grants to fund efforts by State and local 
     governments and Indian tribes to alter correctional 
     facilities for detained juveniles so that they are segregated 
     from the adult population, train corrections officers on the 
     proper supervision of juvenile offenders, and build separate 
     facilities to house limited numbers of juveniles sentenced as 
     adults, among other things. Authorizes such sums as necessary 
     through FY2007 for this grant program.
       Sec. 2165. Rural State funding. Authorizes $20 million in 
     each fiscal year through FY2006 for grants to assist rural 
     States and economically distressed communities in providing 
     secure custody for violent juvenile offenders.
       Sec. 2166. GAO study. Directs the General Accounting Office 
     to conduct a study and

[[Page 112]]

     provide a report within one year on the use of electroshock 
     weapons, 4-point restraints, chemical restraints, and 
     solitary confinement against juvenile offenders.
       Sec. 2167. Family Unity Demonstration Project. Reauthorizes 
     the Family Unity Demonstration Project Act through FY2006. 
     The project provides funding for projects allowing eligible 
     prisoners who are parents to live in structured, community-
     based centers with their young children.

                      Subtitle B--Seniors' Safety

       Sec. 2201. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Seniors Safety Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 2202. Finding and purposes. Legislative findings in 
     support of this subtitle, and statement of legislative 
     purposes.
       Sec. 2203. Definitions. Defines terms used in this 
     subtitle.

                Part 1--Combating Crimes Against Seniors

       Sec. 2211. Enhanced sentencing penalties based on age of 
     victim. Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and, 
     if appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines to include 
     age as one of the criteria for determining whether a 
     sentencing enhancement is appropriate. Encourages such review 
     to reflect the economic and physical harm associated with 
     criminal activity targeted at seniors and consider providing 
     increased penalties for offenses where the victim was a 
     senior.
       Sec. 2212. Study and report on health care fraud sentences. 
     Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and, if 
     appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines applicable to 
     health care fraud offenses. Encourages such review to reflect 
     the serious harms associated with health care fraud and the 
     need for law enforcement to prevent such fraud, and to 
     consider enhanced penalties for persons convicted of health 
     care fraud.
       Sec. 2213. Increased penalties for fraud resulting in 
     serious injury or death. Increases the penalties under the 
     mail fraud statute and the wire fraud statute for fraudulent 
     schemes that result in serious injury or death. The maximum 
     penalty if serious bodily harm occurred would be up to twenty 
     years; if a death occurred, the maximum penalty would be a 
     life sentence.
       Sec. 2214. Safeguarding pension plans from fraud and theft. 
     Punishes, with up to ten years' imprisonment, the act of 
     defrauding retirement arrangements, or obtaining by means of 
     false or fraudulent pretenses money or property of any 
     retirement arrangement.
       Sec. 2215. Additional civil penalties for defrauding 
     pension plans. Authorizes the Attorney General to bring a 
     civil action for retirement fraud, with penalties up to 
     $50,000 for an individual or $100,000 for an organization, or 
     the amount of the gain to the offender or loss to the victim, 
     whichever is greatest.
       Sec. 2216. Punishing bribery and graft in connection with 
     employee benefit plans. Increases the maximum penalty for 
     bribery and graft in connection with the operation of an 
     employee benefit plan from three to five years' imprisonment. 
     Broadens existing law to cover corrupt attempts to give or 
     accept bribery or graft payments, and to proscribe bribery or 
     graft payments to persons exercising de facto influence or 
     control over employee benefit plans.

                 Part 2--Preventing Telemarketing Crime

       Sec. 2221. Centralized complaint and consumer education 
     service for victims of telemarketing fraud. Directs the 
     Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish a central 
     information clearinghouse for victims of telemarketing fraud 
     and procedures for logging in complaints of telemarketing 
     fraud victims, providing information on telemarketing fraud 
     schemes, referring complaints to appropriate law enforcement 
     officials, and providing complaint or prior conviction 
     information. Directs the Attorney General to establish a 
     database of telemarketing fraud convictions secured against 
     corporations or companies, for uses described above.
       Sec. 2222. Blocking of telemarketing scams. Clarifies that 
     telemarketing fraud schemes executed using cellular telephone 
     services are subject to the enhanced penalties for such fraud 
     under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2326. Authorizes termination of 
     telephone service used to carry on telemarketing fraud. 
     Requires telephone companies, upon notification in writing 
     from the Department of Justice that a particular phone number 
     is being used to engage in fraudulent telemarketing or other 
     fraudulent conduct, and after notice to the customer, to 
     terminate the subscriber's telephone service.

                  Part 3--Preventing Health Care Fraud

       Sec. 2231. Injunctive authority relating to false claims 
     and illegal kickback schemes involving Federal health care 
     programs. Authorizes the Attorney General to take immediate 
     action to halt illegal health care fraud kickback schemes 
     under the Social Security Act. Attorney General may seek a 
     civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation, or three times 
     the remuneration, whichever is greater, for each offense 
     under this section with respect to a Federal health care 
     program.
       Sec. 2232. Authorized investigative demand procedures. 
     Authorizes the Attorney General to issue administrative 
     subpoenas to investigate civil health care fraud cases. 
     Provides privacy safeguards for personally identifiable 
     health information that may be obtained in response to an 
     administrative subpoena and divulged in the course of a 
     Federal investigation.
       Sec. 2233. Extending antifraud safeguards to the Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits program. Removes the anti-fraud 
     exemption for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act 
     (FEHB), thereby extending anti-fraud and anti-kickback 
     safeguards applicable to the Medicare and Medicaid program to 
     the FEHB. Allows the Attorney General to use the same civil 
     enforcement tools to fight fraud perpetrated against the FEHB 
     program as are available to other Federal health care 
     programs, and to recover civil penalties against persons or 
     entities engaged in illegal kickback schemes.
       Sec. 2234. Grand jury disclosure. Authorizes Federal 
     prosecutors to seek a court order to share grand jury 
     information regarding health care offenses with other Federal 
     prosecutors for use in civil proceedings or investigations 
     relating to fraud or false claims in connection with any 
     Federal health care program. Permits grand jury information 
     regarding health care offenses to be shared with Federal 
     civil prosecutors, only after ex parte court review and a 
     finding that the information would assist in enforcement of 
     Federal laws or regulations.
       Sec. 2235. Increasing the effectiveness of civil 
     investigative demands in false claims investigations. 
     Authorizes the Attorney General to delegate authority to 
     issue civil investigative demands to the Deputy Attorney 
     General or an Assistant Attorney General. Authorizes 
     whistleblowers who have brought qui tam actions under the 
     False Claims Act to seek permission ftom a district court to 
     obtain information disclosed to the Department of Justice in 
     response to civil investigative demands.

             Part 4--Protecting Residents of Nursing Homes

       Sec. 2241. Nursing home resident protection. Sets penalties 
     for engaging in a pattern of willful violations of Federal or 
     State laws governing the health, safety, or care of 
     individuals residing in residential health care facilities. 
     This section also provides additional whistleblower 
     protection for persons who are retaliated against for 
     reporting deficient nursing home conditions.

         Part 5--Protecting the Rights of Elderly Crime Victims

       Sec. 2251. Use of forfeited funds to pay restitution to 
     crime victims and regulatory agencies. Authorizes the use of 
     forfeited funds to pay restitution to crime victims and 
     regulatory agencies.
       Sec. 2252. Victim restitution. Allows the government to 
     move to dismiss forfeiture proceedings to allow the defendant 
     to use the property subject to forfeiture for the payment of 
     restitution to victims. If forfeiture proceedings are 
     complete, Government may return the forfeited property so it 
     may be used for restitution.
       Sec. 2253. Bankruptcy proceedings not used to shield 
     illegal gains from false claims. Allows an action under the 
     False Claims Act despite concurrent bankruptcy proceedings. 
     Prohibits discharge of debts resulting from judgments or 
     settlements in Medicare and Medicaid fraud cases. Provides 
     that no debt owed for a violation of the False Claims Act or 
     other agreement may be avoided under bankruptcy provisions.
       Sec. 2254. Forfeiture for retirement offenses. Requires the 
     forfeiture of proceeds of a criminal retirement offense. 
     Permits the civil forfeiture of proceeds from a criminal 
     retirement offense.

TITLE III--DETERRING IDENTITY THEFT AND ASSISTING VICTIMS OF CRIME AND 
                           DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

                  Subtitle A--Deterring Identity Theft

               Part 1--Identity Theft Victims Assistance

       Sec. 3111. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 3112. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this part.
       Sec. 3113. Treatment of identity theft mitigation. Requires 
     business entities possessing information relating to an 
     identity theft or that may have done business with a person 
     who has made unauthorized use of a victim's means of 
     identification to provide without charge to the victim or to 
     any Federal, State, or local governing law enforcement agency 
     or officer specified by the victim copies of all related 
     application and transaction information. Limits liability for 
     business entities that provide information under this section 
     for the purpose of identification and prosecution of identity 
     theft or to assist a victim. Authorizes civil enforcement 
     actions by State Attorney General regarding identity theft.
       Sec. 3114. Amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 
     Amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to direct a consumer 
     reporting agency, at the request of a consumer, to block the 
     reporting of any information identified by the consumer in 
     such consumer's file resulting from identity theft, subject 
     to specified requirements.
       Sec. 3115. Coordinating committee study of coordination 
     among Federal, State, and local authorities in enforcing 
     identity theft laws. Amends the Internet False Identification 
     Prevention Act of 2000 to (1) expand the membership of the 
     coordinating committee on false identification to include the 
     Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, the

[[Page 113]]

     Postmaster General, and the Commissioner of the United States 
     Customs Service; (2) extend the term of the coordinating 
     committee through December 28, 2004; (3) direct the 
     coordinating committee to include certain information 
     regarding identity theft in its annual reports to Congress.

                 Part 2--Identity Theft Prevention Act

       Sec. 3121. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 3122. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this part.
       Sec. 3123. Identity theft prevention. Requires credit card 
     companies to notify consumers within 30 days of a change of 
     address request on an existing credit account. This section 
     also codifies the current industry practice of ``fraud 
     alerts'' and imposes penalties for non-compliance by credit 
     issuers or credit reporting agencies. A fraud alert is a 
     statement inserted in a consumer's credit report that 
     notifies users that the consumer does not authorize the 
     issuance of credit in his or her name unless the consumer is 
     first notified in a pre-arranged manner.
       Sec. 3124. Truncation of credit card account numbers. By 18 
     months after enactment of this Act, all new credit-card 
     machines that print receipts electronically shall not print 
     the expiration date or more than the last five digits of the 
     customer's credit card number. By 4 years after enactment, 
     all credit card machines that electronically print out 
     receipts must comply.
       Sec. 3125. Free annual credit report. Entitles every 
     citizen to a free credit report once per year upon request.

          Part 3--Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act

       Sec. 3131. Short title. Contains the short title, ``Social 
     Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2003.''
       Sec. 3132. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this part.
       Sec. 3133. Prohibition of the display, sale, or purchase of 
     social security numbers. Prohibits the sale and display of a 
     social security number without the affirmatively expressed 
     consent of the individual, but allows legitimate business-to-
     business and business-to-government uses of social security 
     numbers as defined by the Attorney General. Financial 
     institutions, though not subject to the Attorney General 
     rule-making, are prohibited by their own regulators from 
     selling or displaying social security numbers to the general 
     public.
       Sec. 3134. Application of prohibition of the display, sale, 
     or purchase of social security numbers to public records. 
     Prohibits government entities from displaying social security 
     numbers on public records posted on the Internet. Only 
     records posted on the Internet after the date of enactment 
     are affected. In addition, the Attorney General may allow 
     some entities that have already posted social security 
     numbers on the Internet to continue doing so. This section 
     also prohibits government entities from displaying a person's 
     social security number on any record issued to the general 
     public through CD-ROMs or other electronic media (for records 
     issued after the date of enactment).
       Sec. 3135. Rulemaking authority of the Attorney General. 
     Allows the Attorney General to decide if social security 
     numbers should be removed from the face of simple government 
     documents like professional licenses.
       Sec. 3136. Treatment of social security numbers on 
     government documents. Requires social security numbers to be 
     prospectively removed from drivers' licenses and government 
     checks.
       Sec. 3137. Limits on personal disclosure of a social 
     security number for consumer transactions. Limits, for the 
     first time, when businesses may require a customer to provide 
     his or her social security number. Under this section, in 
     general, businesses may not require that the social security 
     number be provided. Exceptions include business purposes 
     related to credit reporting, background checks, and law 
     enforcement.
       Sec. 3138. Extension of civil monetary penalties for misuse 
     of a social security number. Authorizes the Social Security 
     Administration to issue civil penalties of up to $5,000 for 
     people who misuse social security numbers.
       Sec. 3139. Criminal penalties for misuse of a social 
     security number. Creates a five-year maximum prison sentence 
     for anyone who obtains another person's social security 
     number for the purpose of locating or identifying that person 
     with the intent to physically injure or harm her.
       Sec. 3140. Civil actions and civil penalties. Individuals 
     whose social security numbers are misused may file a claim in 
     State court to seek an injunction, or seek the greater of 
     $500 in damages or their actual monetary losses. Businesses 
     sued under the statute have an affirmative defense if they 
     have taken reasonable steps to prevent violations of this 
     part.
       Sec. 3141. Federal injunctive authority. Provides the 
     Federal government with injunctive authority with respect to 
     any violation of this part by a public entity.

                  Subtitle B--Crime Victims Assistance

       Sec. 3201. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2003''.

              Part 1--Victim Rights in the Federal System

       Sec. 3211. Right to consult concerning detention. Requires 
     the government to consult with victim prior to a detention 
     hearing to obtain information that can be presented to the 
     court on the issue of any threat the suspected offender may 
     pose to the victim. Requires the court to make inquiry during 
     a detention hearing concerning the views of the victim, and 
     to consider such views in determining whether the suspected 
     offender should be detained.
       Sec. 3212. Right to a speedy trial. Requires the court to 
     consider the interests of the victim in the prompt and 
     appropriate disposition of the case, free from unreasonable 
     delay.
       Sec. 3213. Right to consult concerning plea. Requires the 
     government to make reasonable efforts to notify the victim 
     of, and consider the victim's views about, any proposed or 
     contemplated plea agreement. Requires the court, prior to 
     entering judgment on a plea, to make inquiry concerning the 
     views of the victim on the issue of the plea.
       Sec. 3214. Enhanced participatory rights at trial. Provides 
     standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert the 
     right of the victim to attend and observe the trial. Extends 
     the Victim Rights Clarification Act to apply to televised 
     proceedings. Amends the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act 
     of 1990 to strengthen the right of crime victims to be 
     present at court proceedings, including trials.
       Sec. 3215. Enhanced participatory rights at sentencing. 
     Requires the probation officer to include as part of the 
     presentence report any victim impact statement submitted by a 
     victim. Extends to all victims the right to make a statement 
     or present information in relation to the sentence. Requires 
     the court to consider the victim's views concerning 
     punishment, if such views are presented to the court, before 
     imposing sentence.
       Sec. 3216. Right to notice concerning sentence adjustment. 
     Requires the government to provide the victim the earliest 
     possible notice of the scheduling of a hearing on 
     modification of probation or supervised release for the 
     offender.
       Sec. 3217. Right to notice concerning discharge from 
     psychiatric facility. Requires the government to provide the 
     victim the earliest possible notice of the discharge or 
     conditional discharge from a psychiatric facility of an 
     offender who was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
       Sec. 3218. Right to notice concerning executive clemency. 
     Requires the government to provide the victim the earliest 
     possible notice of the grant of executive clemency to the 
     offender. Requires the Attorney General to report to Congress 
     concerning executive clemency matters delegated for review or 
     investigation to the Attorney General.
       Sec. 3219. Procedures to promote compliance. Establishes an 
     administrative system for enforcing the rights of crime 
     victims in the Federal system.

                 Part 2--Victim Assistance Initiatives

       Sec. 3221. Pilot programs to enforce compliance with State 
     crime victim's rights laws. Authorizes the establishment of 
     pilot programs in five States to establish and operate 
     compliance authorities to promote compliance and effective 
     enforcement of State laws regarding the rights of victims of 
     crime. Compliance authorities would receive and investigate 
     complaints relating to the provision or violation of a crime 
     victim's rights, and issue findings following such 
     investigations. Amounts authorized are $8 million through 
     FY2004, and such sums as necessary for the next two fiscal 
     years.
       Sec. 3222. Increased resources to develop state-of-the-art 
     systems for notifying crime victims of important dates and 
     developments. Authorizes grants to develop and implement 
     crime victim notification systems. Amounts authorized are $10 
     million through FY2004, and $5 million for each of the next 
     two fiscal years.
       Sec. 3223. Restorative justice grants. Authorizes grants to 
     establish juvenile restorative justice programs. Eligible 
     programs shall: (1) be fully voluntary by both the victim and 
     the offender (who must admit responsibility); (2) include as 
     a critical component accountability conferences, at which the 
     victim will have the opportunity to address the offender 
     directly; (3) require that conferences be attended by the 
     victim, the offender, and when possible, the parents or 
     guardians of the offender, and the arresting officer; and (4) 
     provide an early, individualized assessment and action plan 
     to each juvenile offender. These programs may act as an 
     alternative to, or in addition to, incarceration. Amounts 
     authorized are $10 million through FY2004, and $5 million for 
     each of the next two fiscal years.

             Part 3--Amendments to the Victims of Crime Act

       Sec. 3231. Formula for distributions from the Crime Victims 
     Fund. Replaces the annual cap on distributions from the Crime 
     Victims Fund with a formula that ensures stability in the 
     amounts distributed while preserving the amounts remaining in 
     the Fund for use in future years. In general, subject to the 
     availability of money in the Fund, the total amount to be 
     distributed in any fiscal year shall be not less than 105% 
     nor more than 115% of the total amount distributed in the 
     previous fiscal year. This section also establishes minimum 
     levels of annual funding for both State victim assistance 
     grants and discretionary grants by the Office for Victims of 
     Crime.

[[Page 114]]

       Sec. 3232. Clarification regarding anti-terrorism emergency 
     reserve. Clarifies the intent of the USA PATRIOT Act 
     regarding the restructured Antiterrorism emergency reserve, 
     which was that any amounts used to replenish the reserve 
     after the first year would be above any limitation on 
     spending from the Fund.
       Sec. 3233. Prohibition on diverting crime victims fund to 
     offset increased spending. Ensures that the amounts deposited 
     in the Crime Victims Fund are distributed in a timely manner 
     to assist victims of crime as intended by current law and are 
     not diverted to offset increased spending.

          Subtitle C--Violence Against Women Act Enhancements

       Sec. 3301. Transitional housing assistance grants. 
     Authorizes grants to State and local governments, Indian 
     tribes, and organizations to provide transitional housing and 
     related support services (18-month maximum with a 6-month 
     extension) to individuals and dependents who are homeless as 
     a result of domestic violence, and for whom emergency shelter 
     services or other crisis intervention services are 
     unavailable or insufficient. Amounts authorized are $30 
     million for each fiscal year through FY2007.
       Sec. 3302. Shelter services for battered women and 
     children. Provides assistance to local entities that provide 
     shelter or transitional housing assistance to victims of 
     domestic violence. Provides means to improve access to 
     information on family violence within underserved 15 
     populations. Reauthorizes funding for the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act at a level of $175 million 
     through FY2006.

 Title IV--Supporting Law Enforcement and the Effective Administration 
                               of Justice

     Subtitle A--Support for Public Safety Officers and Prosecutors

 Part I--Providing Reliable Officers, Technology, Education, Community 
             Prosecutors, and Training in Our Neighborhoods

       Sec. 4101. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Providing Reliable Officers, Technology, Education, 
     Community Prosecutors, and Training in Our Neighborhoods Act 
     of 2003,'' or ``PROTECTION Act''.
       Sec. 4102. Authorizations. Authorizes $1.15 billion per 
     year through FY 2008 to continue and modernize the Community 
     Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, which has funded 
     114,000 new community police officers in over 12,400 law 
     enforcement agencies. This amount includes $600 million for 
     police hiring grants, $350 million per year for law 
     enforcement technology grants, and $200 million per year for 
     community prosecutor grants.

               Part 2--Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits

       Sec. 4111. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 4112. Fatal heart attack or stroke on duty presumed to 
     be death in line of duty for purposes of public safety 
     officer survivor benefits. Closes a loophole in the 
     Department of Justice Public Safety Officers Benefits Program 
     by ensuring that the survivors of public safety officers who 
     die of heart attacks or strokes while on duty or within 24 
     hours after participating in a training exercise or 
     responding to an emergency situation--regardless of whether a 
     traumatic injury was present at the time of the heart attack 
     or stroke--are eligible to receive financial assistance. This 
     section applies to deaths occurring on or after January 1, 
     2002.

         Part 3--Federal Prosecutors Retirement Benefit Equity

       Sec. 4121. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Federal Prosecutors Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 
     2003''.
       Sec. 4122. Inclusion of Federal prosecutors in the 
     definition of a law enforcement officer. Amends 5 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 8331 and 8401 to extend the enhanced law 
     enforcement officer (LEO) retirement benefits to Federal 
     prosecutors, defined to include Assistant United States 
     Attorneys (AUSAs) and such other attorneys in the Department 
     of Justice as are designated by the Attorney General. This 
     section also exempts Federal prosecutors from mandatory 
     retirement provisions for LEOs under the civil service laws.
       Sec. 4123. Provisions relating to incumbents. Governs the 
     treatment of incumbent Federal prosecutors who would be 
     eligible for LEO retirement benefits under this part. This 
     section requires the Office of Personnel Management to 
     provide notice to incumbents of their rights under this part; 
     allows incumbents to opt out of the LEO retirement program; 
     governs the crediting of prior service by incumbents; and 
     provides for make-up contributions for prior service of 
     incumbents to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
     Fund. Incumbents are given the option of either contributing 
     their own share of any make-up contributions or receiving a 
     proportionally lesser retirement benefit. The Government may 
     contribute its share of any makeup contribution ratably over 
     a ten-year period.
       Sec. 4124. Department of Justice administrative actions. 
     Allows the Attorney General to designate additional 
     Department of Justice attorneys with substantially similar 
     responsibilities, in addition to AUSAs, as Federal 
     prosecutors for purposes of this Act, and thus be eligible 
     for the LEO retirement benefit.

   Subtitle B--Rural Law Enforcement Improvement and Training Grants

       Sec. 4201. Rural Law Enforcement Retention Grant Program. 
     Authorizes grants to help rural communities retain law 
     enforcement officers hired through the COPS program for an 
     additional year. Under this program, rural communities are 
     eligible to receive a one-time retention grant of up to 20% 
     of their original COPS award. Priority is given to 
     communities that demonstrate financial hardship. Authorizes 
     $15 million a year for five years. Provides a 10% set-aside 
     to assist tribal communities.
       Sec. 4202. Rural Law Enforcement Technology Grant Program. 
     Authorizes grants to help rural communities purchase crime-
     fighting technologies without a community policing 
     requirement. Under this program, rural communities are 
     eligible to receive funding for the following general 
     categories of law enforcement-related technology: 
     communications equipment; computer hardware and software; 
     video cameras; and crime analysis technologies. Grant 
     recipients must provide 10% of the total grant amount, 
     subject to a waiver for extreme hardship. Authorizes $40 
     million a year for five years. Provides a 10% set-aside to 
     assist tribal communities.
       Sec. 4203. Rural 9-1-1 service. Authorizes $25 million in 
     grants to establish and improve 911 emergency service in 
     rural areas. Under this program, rural communities are 
     eligible to receive a grant of up to $250,000 to provide 
     access to, and improve, a communications infrastructure that 
     will ensure reliable and seamless communications between law 
     enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service providers. 
     Priority is given to communities that do not have 911 
     service. Provides a 10% set-aside to assist tribal 
     communities.
       Sec. 4204. Small town and rural law enforcement training 
     program. Authorizes funding to establish a Rural Policing 
     Institute as part of the Small Town and Rural Training 
     Program administered by the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center. Funds may be used to: (1) assess the needs of law 
     enforcement in rural areas; (2) develop and deliver export 
     training to rural law enforcement; and (3) conduct outreach 
     efforts to ensure that training programs under the Rural 
     Policing Institute reach law enforcement officers in rural 
     areas. Authorizes $10 million through FY2004 to establish the 
     Rural Policing Institute, and $5 million a year for the next 
     four years to continue programs under the Institute. Provides 
     a 10% set-aside to assist tribal communities.

                         Subtitle C--FBI Reform

       Sec. 4301. Short title. Contain the short title, the 
     ``Federal Bureau of Investigation Reform Act of 2003''.

                    Part I--Whistleblower Protection

       Sec. 4311. Increasing protections for FBI whistleblowers. 
     Amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2303 to expand the types of disclosures 
     that trigger whistleblower protections by protecting 
     disclosures to a supervisor of the employee, the Inspector 
     General for the Department of Justice, a Member of Congress, 
     or the Special Counsel (an office associated with enforcement 
     before the Merit Systems Protection Board provided for by 5 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1214).

                  Part 2--FBI Security Career Program

       Sec. 4321. Security management policies. Requires the 
     Attorney General to establish policies and procedures for 
     career management of FBI security personnel.
       Sec. 4322. Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 
     Authorizes the Attorney General to delegate to the FBI 
     Director the Attorney General's duties with respect to the 
     FBI security workforce, and ensures that the security career 
     program will cover both headquarters and FBI field offices.
       Sec. 4323. Director of Security. Directs the FBI Director 
     to appoint a Director of Security to assist the FBI Director 
     in carrying out his duties under this part.
       Sec. 4324. Security career program boards. Provides for the 
     establishment of a security career program board to advise in 
     managing hiring, training, education, and career development 
     of personnel in the FBI security workforce.
       Sec. 4325. Designation of security positions. Directs the 
     FBI Director to designate certain positions as security 
     positions, with responsibility for personnel security and 
     access control; information systems security and information 
     assurance; physical security and technical surveillance 
     countermeasures; operational, program and industrial 
     security; and information security and classification 
     management.
       Sec. 4326. Career development. Requires that career paths 
     to senior security positions be published. No requirement or 
     preference for FBI Special Agents shall be used in the 
     consideration of persons for security positions unless the 
     Attorney General makes a special determination. All FBI 
     personnel shall have the opportunity to acquire the 
     education, training and experience needed for senior security 
     positions. Policies established under this part shall be 
     designed to select the best qualified individuals, with 
     consideration also given to the need for a balanced 
     workforce.
       Sec. 4327. General education, training, and experience 
     requirements. Directs the FBI Director to establish 
     education, training, and

[[Page 115]]

     experience requirements for each security position. Before 
     assignment as a manager or deputy manager of a significant 
     security program, a person must have completed a security 
     program management course accredited by the Intelligence 
     Community-Department of Defense Joint Security Training 
     Consortium or determined to be comparable by the FBI 
     Director, and have six years experience in security.
       Sec. 4328. Education and training programs. Directs the FBI 
     Director, in consultation with the Director of Central 
     Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, to establish 
     education and training programs for FBI security personnel 
     that are, to the maximum extent practical, uniform with 
     Intelligence and Department of Defense programs.
       Sec. 4329. Office of Personnel Management approval. Directs 
     the Attorney General to submit any requirement established 
     under section 4327 to the Office of Personnel Management for 
     approval.

           Part 3--FBI Counterintelligence Polygraph Program

       Sec. 4331. Definitions. Defines terms used in this part.
       Sec. 4332. Establishment of program. Establishes a 
     counterintelligence screening polygraph program for the FBI, 
     consisting of periodic polygraph examinations of employees 
     and contractors in positions that are specified by the FBI 
     Director as exceptionally sensitive. This program shall be 
     established within six months of the publication of the 
     results of the Polygraph Review by the National Academy of 
     Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the 
     Polygraph.
       Sec. 4333. Regulations. Directs the Attorney General to 
     prescribe regulations for the polygraph program, which 
     regulations shall include procedures for addressing ``false 
     positive'' results and ensuring quality control. No adverse 
     personnel action may be taken solely by reason of an 
     individual's physiological reaction on a polygraph 
     examination without further investigation and a personal 
     determination by the FBI Director. Employees who are subject 
     to polygraph 19 examinations shall have prompt access to 
     unclassified reports regarding any such examinations that 
     relate to adverse personnel actions.
       Sec. 4334. Report on further enhancement of FBI personnel 
     security program. Requires a report within nine months of the 
     enactment of this Act on any further legislative action that 
     the FBI Director considers appropriate to enhance the FBI's 
     personnel security program.

                             Part 4--Report

       Sec. 4341. Report on legal authority for FBI programs and 
     activities. Requires a report within nine months after 
     enactment of this Act describing the legal authority for all 
     FBI programs and activities, identifying those that have 
     express statutory authority and those that do not. This 
     section also requires the Attorney General to recommend 
     whether (1) the FBI should continue to have investigative 
     responsibility for the criminal statutes for which it 
     currently has investigative responsibility; (2) the authority 
     for any FBI program or activity should be modified or 
     repealed; (3) the FBI should have express statutory authority 
     for any program or activity for which it does not currently 
     have such authority; and (4) the FBI should have authority 
     for any new program or activity.

                   Part 5--Ending the Double Standard

       Sec. 4351. Allowing disciplinary suspensions of members of 
     the Senior Executive Service for 14 days or less. Lifts the 
     minimum of 14 days suspension that applies in the FBI's SES 
     disciplinary cases and thereby provides additional options 
     for discipline in SES cases and encourages equality of 
     treatment. The current inflexibility of disciplinary options 
     applicable to SES officials was cited at a Senate Judiciary 
     Committee oversight hearing in July 2001 as one underlying 
     reason for the ``double standard'' in FBI discipline.
       Sec. 4352. Submitting Office of Professional Responsibility 
     reports to congressional committees. Requires the OIG to 
     submit to the Judiciary Committees, for five years, annual 
     reports to be prepared by the FBI Office of Professional 
     Responsibility summarizing its investigations, 
     recommendations, and their dispositions, and also requires 
     that such annual reports include an analysis of whether any 
     double standard is being employed for FBI disciplinary 
     action.

        Part 6--Enhancing Security at the Department of Justice

       Sec. 4361. Report on the protection of security and 
     information at the Department of Justice. Requires the 
     Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the manner 
     in which the Department of Justice Security and Emergency 
     Planning Staff, Office of Intelligence Policy and Review 
     (OIPR), and Chief Information Officer plan to improve the 
     protection of security and information at the Department, 
     including a plan to establish secure communications between 
     the FBI and OIPR for processing information related to the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
       Sec. 4362. Authorization for increased resources to protect 
     security and information. Authorizes funds for the Department 
     of Justice Security and Emergency Planning Staff to meet the 
     increased demands to provide personnel, physical, 
     information, technical, and litigation security for the 
     Department, to prepare for terrorist threats and other 
     emergencies, and to review security compliance by Department 
     components. Amounts authorized are $13 million through 
     FY2004, $17 million for FY2005, and $22 million for FY2006.
       Sec. 4363. Authorization for increased resources to fulfill 
     national security mission of the Department of Justice. 
     Authorizes funds for the Department of Justice Office of 
     Intelligence Policy and Review to help meet the increased 
     personnel demands to combat terrorism, process applications 
     to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, participate 
     effectively in counterespionage investigations, provide 
     policy analysis and oversight on national security matters, 
     and enhance computer and telecommunications security. Amounts 
     authorized are $7 million through FY2004, $7.5 million for 
     FY2005, and $8 million for FY2006.

               Subtitle D--DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act

       Sec. 4401. Short title. Contains the short title, the ``DNA 
     Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 4402. Assessment of backlog in DNA analysis of 
     samples. Requires the Attorney General to survey law 
     enforcement to assess the extent of the backlog of untested 
     rape kits and other sexual assault evidence. Within one year 
     of enactment, the Attorney General shall submit his findings 
     in a report to Congress with a plan for carrying out 
     additional assessments and reports on the backlog as needed. 
     Authorizes $500,000 to carry out this section.
       Sec. 4403. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program. 
     Names a section of the DNA Backlog Elimination Act after Ms. 
     Debbie Smith, and amends the purpose section of that Act to 
     ensure the timely testing of rape kits and evidence from non-
     suspect cases.
       Sec. 4404. Increased grants for analysis of DNA samples 
     from convicted offenders and crime scenes. Extends and 
     increases authorizations in the DNA Analysis Backlog 
     Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14135. That Act authorizes 
     $15 million dollars for FY2003 for DNA testing of convicted 
     offender samples, and $50 million for FY2003 and FY2004 for 
     DNA testing of crime scene evidence (including rape kits) and 
     laboratory improvement. This section increases the convicted 
     offender authorization to $15 million a year through FY2007--
     a total increase of $60 million--and increases the crime 
     scene evidence and laboratory improvement authorizations to 
     $75 million a year through FY2006, and $25 million for 
     FY2007--a total increase of $275 million.
       Sec. 4405. Authority of local governments to apply for and 
     receive DNA Backlog Elimination Grants. Authorizes local 
     State governments and Indian tribes to apply directly for 
     Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants so that Federal resources can 
     meet local needs more quickly.
       Sec. 4406. Improving eligibility criteria for backlog 
     grants. Amends the eligibility requirements for Debbie Smith 
     DNA Backlog Grants to ensure that applicants adhere to 
     certain protocols. In making Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants, 
     the Department of Justice shall give priority to applicants 
     with the greatest backlogs per capita.
       Sec. 4407. Quality assurance standards for collection and 
     handling of DNA evidence. Requires the Department of Justice 
     to develop a recommended national protocol for the collection 
     of DNA evidence at crime scenes, which will provide guidance 
     to law enforcement and other first responders on appropriate 
     ways to collect and maintain DNA evidence. This section also 
     amends the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 
     3796gg, to ensure that the recommended national protocol for 
     training individuals in the collection and use of DNA 
     evidence through forensic examination in cases of sexual 
     assault that is mandated by that Act is in fact developed, 
     and to include standards for training of emergency response 
     personnel.
       Sec. 4408. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program Grants. 
     Authorizes grants to establish and maintain sexual assault 
     examiner programs, carry out sexual assault examiner training 
     and certification, and acquire or improve forensic equipment. 
     The grant program is authorized through FY2007, at $30 
     million per year. In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General shall give priority to programs that are 
     serving or will serve communities that are currently 
     underserved by existing sexual assault examiner programs.
       Sec. 4409. DNA Evidence Training Grants. Authorizes grants 
     to train law enforcement and prosecutors in the collection, 
     handling, and courtroom use of DNA evidence, and to train law 
     enforcement in responding to drug-facilitated sexual 
     assaults. Grants are contingent upon adherence to FBI 
     laboratory protocols, use of the collection standards 
     established pursuant to section 4407 and participation in a 
     State laboratory system. The grant program is authorized 
     through FY2007, at $10 million per year.
       Sec. 4410. Authorizing John Doe DNA Indictments. In Federal 
     sexual assault crimes, authorizes the issuance of ``John 
     Doe'' DNA indictments that identify the defendant by his DNA 
     profile. Such indictments must

[[Page 116]]

     issue within the applicable statute of limitations; 
     thereafter, the prosecution may commence at any time once the 
     defendant is arrested or served with a summons.
       Sec. 4411. Increased grants for Combined DNA Index System 
     (CODIS). Authorizes $9.7 million to upgrade the national DNA 
     database.
       Sec. 4412. Increased grants for Federal Convicted Offender 
     Program (FCOP). Authorizes $500,000 to process Federal 
     offender DNA samples and enter that information into the 
     national DNA database.
       Sec. 4413. Privacy requirements for handling DNA evidence 
     and DNA analyses. Requires the Department of Justice to 
     promulgate privacy regulations that will limit the use and 
     dissemination of DNA information generated for criminal 
     justice purposes, and ensure the privacy, security, and 
     confidentiality of DNA samples and analyses. This section 
     also amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Reduction Act of 2000 to 
     increase criminal penalties for disclosing or using a DNA 
     sample or DNA analysis in violation of that act by a fine not 
     to exceed $100,000 per offense.

       Subtitle E--Additional Improvements to the Justice System

       Sec. 4501. Providing remedies for retaliation against 
     whistleblowers making congressional disclosures. Provides a 
     remedy for the currently existing right under 5 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 7211 for Federal employees to provide information to a 
     Member or Committee of Congress without retaliation. The 
     existing statute provides a right without any remedy for such 
     retaliation; this section creates a cause of action for the 
     injured employee.
       Sec. 4502. Establishment of protective function privilege. 
     Establishes a privilege against testimony by Secret Service 
     officers charged with protecting the President, those in 
     direct line for the Presidency, and visiting foreign heads of 
     state.
       Sec. 4503. Professional standards for government attorneys. 
     Clarifies the attorney conduct standards governing attorneys 
     for the Federal Government to ensure that Federal prosecutors 
     and agents can use traditional Federal law enforcement 
     techniques without running afoul of State bar rules. This 
     section also directs the U.S. Judicial Conference to develop 
     national rules of professional conduct in any area in which 
     local rules may interfere with effective Federal law 
     enforcement, including, in particular, with respect to 
     communications with represented persons.

                TITLE V--COMBATING DRUG AND GUN VIOLENCE

          Subtitle A--Drug Treatment, Prevention, and Testing

                         Part 1--Drug Treatment

       Sec. 5101. Funding for treatment in rural States and 
     economically depressed communities. Authorizes grants to 
     States to provide treatment facilities in the neediest rural 
     States and economically depressed communities that have high 
     rates of drug addiction but lack resources to provide 
     adequate treatment. Amount authorized is $50 million a year 
     through FY2006.
       Sec. 5102. Funding for residential treatment centers for 
     women with children. Authorizes grants to States to provide 
     residential treatment facilities for methamphetamine, heroin, 
     and other drug addicted women who have minor children. These 
     facilities offer specialized treatment for addicted mothers 
     and allow their children to reside with them in the facility 
     or nearby while treatment is ongoing. Amount authorized is 
     $10 million a year through FY2006.
       Sec. 5103. Drug treatment alternative to prison programs 
     administered by State or local prosecutors. Authorizes grants 
     to State or local prosecutors to implement or expand drug 
     treatment alternatives to prison programs. Amounts authorized 
     are $75 million through FY2004, $85 million for FY2005, $95 
     million for FY2006, $105 million for FY2007, and $125 million 
     for FY2008.
       Sec. 5104. Substance abuse treatment in Federal prisons 
     reauthorization. Authorizes funding for substance abuse 
     treatment in Federal prisons through FY2004.
       Sec. 5105. Drug treatment for juveniles. Allows the 
     Director of the Center for Substance Abuse to make grants to 
     public and private nonprofit entities to provide residential 
     drug treatment programs for juveniles. Authorizes such sums 
     as necessary through FY2005, and $300 million a year through 
     FY2007 from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

            Part 2--Funding for Drug-Free Community Programs

       Sec. 5111. Extension of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Program. Extends funding for the Safe and Drug-
     Free Schools and Communities Program through FY2007, at $655 
     million a year through FY2005, and $955 million for FY2006 
     and FY2007.
       Sec. 5112. Say No to Drugs Community Centers. Authorizes 
     grants for the provision of drug prevention services to youth 
     living in eligible communities during after-school hours or 
     summer vacations. Authorizes $125 million a year through 
     FY2005 from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
       Sec. 5113. Drug education and prevention relating to youth 
     gangs. Extends funding under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 
     through FY2007.
       Sec. 5114. Drug education and prevention program for 
     runaway and homeless youth. Extends funding under the Anti-
     Drug Abuse Act of 1988 through FY2007.

                  Part 3--Zero Tolerance Drug Testing

       Sec. 5121. Grant authority. Authorizes grants to States and 
     localities for programs supporting comprehensive drug testing 
     of criminal justice populations, and to establish appropriate 
     interventions to illegal drug use for offender populations.
       Sec. 5122. Administration. Instructs Attorney General to 
     coordinate with the other Department of Justice initiatives 
     that address drug testing and interventions in the criminal 
     justice system.
       Sec. 5123. Applications. Instructs potential applicants on 
     the process of requesting such grants, which are to be 
     awarded on a competitive basis.
       Sec. 5124. Federal share. The Federal share of a grant made 
     under this part may not exceed 75% of the total cost of the 
     program.
       Sec. 5125. Geographic distribution. The Attorney General 
     shall ensure that, to the extent practicable, an equitable 
     geographic distribution of grant awards is made, with rural 
     and tribal jurisdiction representation.
       Sec. 5126. Technical assistance, training, and evaluation. 
     The Attorney General shall provide technical assistance and 
     training in furtherance of the purposes of this part.
       Sec. 5127. Authorization of appropriations. Authorizes $75 
     million for FY2003 and such sums as are necessary through 
     FY2007.
       Sec. 5128. Permanent set-aside for research and evaluation. 
     The Attorney General shall set aside between 1% to 3% of the 
     sums appropriated under section 5127 for research and 
     evaluation of this program.

                 Part 4--Crack House Statute Amendments

       Sec. 5131. Offenses. Amends crack house statute (21 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 856) to make it apply to those who (1) knowingly open, 
     lease, rent, use or maintain a place either permanently or 
     temporarily for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing or 
     using any controlled substance and (2) manage or control any 
     place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of 
     unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a 
     controlled substance. These changes clarify that the law 
     applies not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but 
     to ``single-event'' activities. This section also applies the 
     law to outdoor as well as indoor venues.
       Sec. 5132. Civil penalty and equitable relief for 
     maintaining drug-involved premises. Establishes the civil 
     penalty for violating 21 U.S.C. Sec. 856 as amended to either 
     $250,000 or two times the gross receipts that were derived 
     from each violation of that section.
       Sec. 5133. Declaratory and injunctive remedies. Authorizes 
     the Attorney General to commence a civil action for 
     declaratory or injunctive relief for violations of 21 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 856 as amended.
       Sec. 5134. Sentencing Commission guidelines. Requires the 
     Sentencing Commission to review Federal sentencing guidelines 
     with respect to offenses involving gammahydroxybutyric acid 
     and consider amending Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     provide for increased penalties.
       Sec. 5135. Authorization of appropriations for a demand 
     reduction coordinator. Authorizes $5.9 million to the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration to hire a special agent in each 
     State to coordinate demand reduction activities.
       Sec. 5136. Authorization of appropriations for drug 
     education. Authorizes such sums as may be necessary to the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration to educate youths, parents, 
     and other interested adults about the drugs associated with 
     raves.

        Part 5--Cracking Down on Methamphetamine in Rural Areas

       Sec. 5141. Methamphetamine treatment programs in rural 
     areas. Authorizes grants to establish methamphetamine 
     prevention and treatment pilot programs in rural areas. 
     Provides a 10% set-aside to assist tribal communities.
       Sec. 5142. Methamphetamine prevention education. Authorizes 
     $5 million a year through FY2008 to fund programs that 
     educate people in rural areas about the early signs of 
     methamphetamine use. Provides a 10% set-aside to assist 
     tribal communities.
       Sec. 5143. Methamphetamine cleanup. Authorizes $20 million 
     to make grants to States or units of local government to help 
     cleanup methamphetamine laboratories in rural areas and 
     improve contract-related response times for such cleanups. 
     Provides a 10% set-aside to assist tribal communities.

                      Subtitle B--Disarming Felons

                     Part 1--Our Lady of Peace Act

       Sec. 5201. Short Title. Contains the short title, the ``Our 
     Lady of Peace Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 5202. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this part.
       Sec. 5203. Enhancement of requirement that Federal 
     departments and agencies provide relevant information to the 
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Amends the 
     Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to require the head of 
     each U.S. department or agency to ascertain whether it has 
     such information on persons for whom receipt of a firearm 
     would violate specified Federal provisions regarding excluded 
     individuals or State law as is necessary to enable the 
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to 
     operate. Directs

[[Page 117]]

     that any such record that the department or agency has to be 
     made available to the Attorney General for inclusion in the 
     NICS.
       Sec. 5204. Requirements to obtain waiver. Makes a State 
     eligible to receive a waiver of the 10% matching requirement 
     for National Criminal History Improvement Grants if the State 
     provides at least 95% of the information described in this 
     Act, including the name of and other relevant identifying 
     information related to each person disqualified from 
     acquiring a firearm.
       Sec. 5205. Implementation grants to States. Directs the 
     Attorney General to make grants to each State: (1) to 
     establish or upgrade information and identification 
     technologies for firearms eligibility determinations; and (2) 
     for use by the State's chief judicial officer to improve the 
     handling of proceedings related to criminal history 
     dispositions and restraining orders. Authorizes $250 million 
     a year through FY2006.
       Sec. 5206 Continuing evaluations. Requires the Director of 
     the Bureau of Justice Statistics to study and evaluate the 
     operations of NICS and to report on grants and on best 
     practices of States.
       Sec. 5207. Grants to State courts for the improvement in 
     automation and transmittal of disposition record. Directs the 
     Attorney General to make grants to each State for use by the 
     chief judicial officer of the State to improve the handling 
     of proceedings related to criminal history dispositions and 
     restraining orders. Authorizes $125 million a year through 
     FY2006.

       Part 2--Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology

       Sec. 5211. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act of 
     2003,'' or ``BLAST Act''.
       Sec. 5212. Purposes. Statement of legislative purposes.
       Sec. 5213. Definition of ballistics. Defines terms used in 
     this part.
       Sec. 5214. Test firing and automated storage of ballistics 
     records. Requires a licensed manufacturer or importer to test 
     fire firearms, prepare ballistics images, make records 
     available to the Secretary of the Treasury for entry in a 
     computerized database, and store the fired bullet and 
     cartridge casings. Directs the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary to assist firearm manufacturers and importers in 
     complying. Specifies that nothing herein creates a cause of 
     action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other 
     person for any civil liability except for imposition of a 
     civil penalty under this section. Authorizes $20 million a 
     year through FY2006 to carry out this program.
       Sec. 5215. Privacy rights of law abiding citizens. 
     Prohibits the use of ballistics information of individual 
     guns for (1) prosecutorial purposes, unless law enforcement 
     officials have a reasonable belief that a crime has been 
     committed and that ballistics information would assist in the 
     investigation of that crime, or (2) the creation of a 
     national firearms registry of gun owners.
       Sec. 5216. Demonstration firearm crime reduction strategy. 
     Directs the Secretary and the Attorney General to establish 
     in the jurisdictions selected a comprehensive firearm crime 
     reduction strategy. Requires the Secretary and the Attorney 
     General to select not fewer than ten jurisdictions for 
     participation in the program. Authorizes $20 million per year 
     through FY2006 to carry out this program.

                   Part 3--Extension of Project Exile

       Sec. 5221. Authorization of funding for additional State 
     and local gun prosecutors. Authorizes $150 million to hire 
     additional local and State prosecutors to expand the Project 
     Exile program in high gun-crime areas. Requires 
     interdisciplinary team approach to prevent, reduce, and 
     respond to firearm related crimes in partnership with 
     communities.

    Part 4--Expansion of the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative

       Sec. 5231. Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. Directs 
     the Secretary of the Treasury to expand participation in the 
     Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII). Authorizes 
     grants to States and localities for purposes of assisting 
     them in the tracing of firearms and participation in the 
     YCGII.

                          Part 5--Gun Offenses

       Sec. 5241 Gun ban for dangerous juvenile offenders. 
     Prohibits juveniles adjudged delinquent for serious drug 
     offenses or violent felonies from receiving or possessing a 
     firearm, and makes it a crime for any person to sell or 
     provide a firearm to someone they have reason to believe has 
     been adjudged delinquent. This section applies only 
     prospectively, and access to firearms may be restored under 
     State restoration of rights provisions, but only if such 
     restoration is on a case-by-case, rather than automatic 
     basis.
       Sec. 5242. Improving firearms safety. Requires gun dealers 
     to have secure gun storage devices available for sale, 
     including any device or attachment to prevent a gun's use by 
     one not having regular access to the firearm, or a lockable 
     safe or storage box.
       Sec. 5243. Juvenile handgun safety. Increases the maximum 
     penalty for transferring a handgun to a juvenile or for a 
     juvenile to unlawfully possess a handgun from one to five 
     years.
       Sec. 5244. Serious juvenile drug offenses as armed career 
     criminal predicates. Permits the use of an adjudication of 
     juvenile delinquency for a serious drug trafficking offense 
     as a predicate offense for determining whether a defendant 
     falls within the Armed Career Criminal Act. That act provides 
     additional penalties for armed criminals with a proven record 
     of serious crimes involving drugs and violence.
       Sec. 5245. Increased penalty for transferring a firearm to 
     a minor for use in crime of violence or drug trafficking 
     crime. Increases the maximum penalty for providing a firearm 
     to a juvenile that one knows will be used in a serious crime 
     from 10 to 15 years.
       Sec. 5246. Increased penalty for firearms conspiracy. 
     Subjects conspirators to the same penalties as are provided 
     for the underlying firearm offenses in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924.

                 Part 6--Closing the Gun Show Loophole

       Sec. 5251. Findings. Legislative findings in support of 
     this part.
       Sec. 5252. Extension of Brady background checks to gun 
     shows. Closes the gun show loophole by regulating firearms 
     transfers at gun shows, including requiring criminal 
     background checks on all transferees. Increases penalties for 
     serious record-keeping violations by licensees, and for 
     violations of criminal background check requirements. Amends 
     the Brady law to prevent the Federal government from keeping 
     records on qualified purchasers for more than 90 days.

                 TITLE VI--THE INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT

       Sec. 6001. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Innocence Protection Act of 2003.''

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

       Sec. 6101. DNA testing in Federal criminal justice system. 
     Establishes rules and procedures governing applications for 
     DNA testing by inmates in the Federal system, and prohibits 
     the destruction of biological evidence in a criminal case 
     while a defendant remains incarcerated, with exceptions.
       Sec. 6102. DNA testing in State criminal justice system. 
     Conditions receipt of Federal grants for DNA-related programs 
     on assurances that the State will adopt adequate procedures 
     for preserving DNA evidence and making DNA testing available 
     to inmates. States must also agree to review their capital 
     convictions and conduct DNA testing where appropriate and, in 
     cases where DNA testing exonerates an inmate, investigate 
     what went wrong and take steps to prevent similar errors in 
     future cases.
       Sec. 6103. Prohibition pursuant to section 5 of the 14th 
     Amendment. Prohibits States from denying State prisoners 
     access to evidence for the purpose of DNA testing, where such 
     testing has the scientific potential to produce new, 
     noncumulative evidence that is material to the prisoner's 
     claim of innocence, and that raises a reasonable probability 
     that he or she would not have been convicted.
       Sec. 6104. Grants to prosecutors for DNA testing programs. 
     Permits States to use grants under the Edward Byrn Memorial 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs to fund 
     the growing number of prosecutor-initiated programs that 
     review convictions to identify cases in which DNA testing is 
     appropriate and that offer DNA testing to inmates in such 
     cases.

   Subtitle B--Improving State Systems for Providing Competent Legal 
                       Services in Capital Cases

       Sec. 6201. Capital Representation System Improvement 
     Grants. Authorizes grants to States to improve the quality of 
     legal representation provided to indigent defendants in 
     capital cases. States that choose to accept Federal funds 
     agree to create or improve an effective system for providing 
     competent legal representation in capital cases. The 
     following funds are authorized to carry out the grant 
     programs: FY2003: $50.million; FY2004: $75 million; FY2005 
     and FY2006: $ 100 million per year; FY2007: $75 million; 
     FY2008: $50 million.
       Sec. 6202. Enforcement suits. A person may bring a civil 
     suit in Federal district court against an officer of a State 
     receiving Federal funds under section 6201, alleging that the 
     State has failed to maintain an effective capital 
     representation system as required under the grant program. 
     The Attorney General may intervene in such suits, and where 
     he does so, he assumes responsibility for conducting the 
     action. If the court finds that the State has not met the 
     grant conditions, it may order injunctive or declaratory 
     relief, but not money damages.
       Sec. 6203. Grants to qualified capital defender 
     organizations. If a State does not qualify or does not apply 
     for a grant under section 6201, a qualified capital defender 
     organization in that State may apply for grant funds. Grants 
     to such organizations may be used to strengthen systems, 
     recruit and train attorneys, and augment an organization's 
     resources for providing competent representation in capital 
     cases.
       Sec. 6204. Grants to train prosecutors, defense counsel, 
     and State and local judges handling State capital cases. 
     Authorizes grants to train State and local prosecutors, 
     defense counsel, and judges in handling capital cases. Each 
     program is authorized at $15 million through FY2007.

[[Page 118]]



  Subtitle C--Right to Review of the Death Penalty Upon the Grant of 
                               Certiorari

       Sec. 6301. Protecting the rights of death row inmates to 
     review of cases granted certiorari. Ensure that a defendant 
     who is granted certiorari by the Supreme Court (an action 
     requiring four affirmative votes by qualified Justices), but 
     who is not granted a stay of execution by the Court (an 
     action requiring five affirmative votes), is not executed 
     while awaiting review of his case.

         Subtitle D--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted

       Sec. 6401. Increased compensation in Federal cases. 
     Increases the maximum amount of damages that the U.S. Court 
     of Federal Claims may award against the United States in 
     cases of unjust imprisonment from a flat $5,000 to $10,000 
     per year.
       Sec. 6402. Sense of Congress regarding compensation in 
     State death penalty cases. Expresses the sense of Congress 
     that States should provide reasonable compensation to any 
     person found to have been unjustly convicted of an offense 
     against the State and sentenced to death.

        Subtitle E--Student Loan Repayment for Public Attorneys

       Sec. 6501. Student loan repayment for public attorneys. 
     Encourages qualified individuals to enter and continue 
     employment as prosecutors and public defenders by 
     establishing a program to repay Stafford loans for both 
     prosecutors and defenders who agree to remain employed for 
     the required period of service. This section also extends 
     Perkins loan forgiveness--currently available only to 
     prosecutors--to public defenders. Repayment benefits may not 
     exceed $6,000 in a single calendar year, or a total of 
     $40,000 for any individual.

           TITLE VII--STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS

            Subtitle A--Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act

       Sec. 7101. Short title. Contains the short title, the 
     ``Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003''.
       Sec. 7102. Inadmissibility and deportability of aliens who 
     have committed acts of torture or extrajudicial killing 
     abroad. Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act by 
     expanding the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to 
     cover aliens who have committed, ordered, incited, assisted, 
     or otherwise participated in the commission of acts of 
     torture or extrajudicial killing abroad and clarify and 
     expand the scope of the genocide bar. This section applies to 
     acts committed before, on, or after the date this legislation 
     is enacted, and to all cases after enactment, even where the 
     acts in question occurred or where adjudication procedures 
     were initiated prior to enactment.
       Sec. 7103. Inadmissibility and deportability of foreign 
     government officials who have committed particularly severe 
     violations of religious freedom. Amends 8 U.S.C. 11 
     82(a)(2)(G), which was added as part of the International 
     Religious Freedom Act of 1998, to expand the grounds for 
     inadmissibility and deportability of aliens who commit 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom.
       Sec. 7104. Bar to good moral character for aliens who have 
     committed acts of torture, extrajudicial killings, or severe 
     violations of religious freedom. Amends 8 U.S.C. 1101(f), 
     which provides the current definition of ``good moral 
     character,'' to make clear that aliens who have committed 
     torture, extrajudicial killing, or severe violation of 
     religious freedom abroad do not qualify. This amendment 
     prevents aliens covered by the amendments made in sections 
     7102 and 7103 from becoming U.S. citizens or benefitting from 
     cancellation of removal or voluntary departure.
       Sec. 7105. Establishment of the Office of Special 
     Investigations. Provides explicit statutory authority for the 
     Office of Special Investigations (OSI), which was established 
     in 1979 within the Criminal Division of the Department, and 
     expands OSI's current authorized mission beyond Nazi war 
     criminals. This section also sets forth specific 
     considerations in determining the appropriate legal action to 
     take against an alien who has participated in Nazi 
     persecution, genocide, torture or extrajudicial killing 
     abroad, and expressly directs the Department of Justice to 
     consider the availability of prosecution under U.S. laws for 
     any conduct that forms the basis for removal and 
     denaturalization. In addition, the Department is directed to 
     consider deportation to foreign jurisdictions that are 
     prepared to undertake such a prosecution.
       Sec. 7106. Report on implementation. Directs the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the INS Commissioner, to report 
     within six months on the implementation of the Act, including 
     procedures for referral of matters to OSI, any revisions made 
     to INS forms to reflect amendments made by the Act, and the 
     procedures developed, with adequate due process protection, 
     to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien 
     is deemed inadmissible under the Act.

                   Subtitle B--Deterring Cargo Theft

       Sec. 7201. Punishment of cargo theft. Clarifies Federal 
     statute governing thefts of vehicles normally used in 
     interstate commerce to includes trailers, motortrucks, and 
     air cargo containers; and freight warehouses and transfer 
     stations. Makes such a theft a felony punishable by three 
     (not one) years in prison. Provides for appropriate 
     amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.
       Sec. 7202. Reports to Congress on cargo theft. Mandates 
     annual reports by the Attorney General to evaluate and 
     identify further means of combating cargo theft.
       Sec. 7203. Establishment of advisory committee on cargo 
     theft. Establishes a 6-member Advisory Committee on Cargo 
     Theft with representatives of the Departments of Justice, 
     Treasury and Transportation, and three experts from the 
     private sector. Committee will hold hearings and submit a 
     report within one year with detailed recommendations on cargo 
     security.
       Sec. 7204. Addition of attempted theft and counterfeiting 
     offenses to eliminate gaps and inconsistencies in coverage. 
     Amends 22 statutes to clarify that an attempt to embezzle 
     funds or counterfeit is a crime, just as is actual 
     embezzlement or counterfeiting.
       Sec. 7205. Clarification of scienter requirement for 
     receiving property stolen from an Indian tribal organization. 
     Provides that it is a crime to receive, conceal or retain 
     property stolen from a tribal organization if one knows that 
     the property has been stolen, even if one did not know that 
     it had been stolen from a tribal organization.
       Sec. 7206. Larceny involving post office boxes and postal 
     stamp vending machines. Clarifies that it is a crime to steal 
     from a post office box or stamp vending machine irrespective 
     of whether it is in a building used by the Postal Service.
       Sec. 7207. Expansion of Federal theft offenses to cover 
     theft of vessels. Expands Federal law covering the 
     transportation of stolen vehicles to include watercraft.

  Subtitle C--Additional Improvements and Corrections to the Federal 
                             Criminal Laws

       Sec. 7301. Enhanced penalties for cultural heritage crimes. 
     Increases penalties for violations of the Archaeological 
     Resources Protection Act of 1979 and other cultural heritage 
     crimes.
       Sec. 7302. Enhanced enforcement of laws affecting 
     racketeer-influenced and corrupt organizations. Enhances the 
     ability of Federal and State regulators to enforce existing 
     law by giving State Attorneys General and the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission explicit authority to bring a civil RICO 
     action under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1964. Currently, only the U.S. 
     Attorney General has such authority.
       Sec. 7303. Increased maximum corporate penalty for 
     antitrust violations. Increases the maximum statutory fine 
     for corporations convicted of criminal antitrust violations 
     from the current Sherman Act maximum of $10 million to a new 
     maximum of $100 million.
       Sec. 7304. Technical correction to ensure compliance of 
     sentencing guidelines with provisions of all Federal 
     statutes. Ensures that sentencing guidelines promulgated by 
     the United States Sentencing Commission are consistent with 
     the provisions of all Federal statutes.
       Sec. 7305. Inclusion of assault crimes and unlicensed money 
     transmitting businesses as racketeering activity. Makes 
     assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious 
     bodily injury, and operating an unlicensed money transmitting 
     business predicate crimes for a RICO prosecution.
       Sec. 7306. Inclusion of unlicensed money transmitting 
     businesses and structuring currency transactions to evade 
     reporting requirement as wiretap predicates. Adds Sec. 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1960 and 5324 to list of offenses for which 
     the Government may seek a wiretap.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 24. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income dividends received by individuals; to the Committee 
on Finance
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 25. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that dividend income of individuals not be taxed at rates in excess of 
the maximum capital gains rate; to the Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 26. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that dividend and interest income of individuals not be taxed at rates 
in excess of the maximum capital gains rate; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a package of 
three bills I hope will be the starting point for a long overdue 
discussion on reducing taxes on investment income, particularly 
dividends. The first bill would completely eliminate taxes on 
dividends. The second bill would reduce the tax on dividends to the 
capital gains rate. The third bill would lower the tax to the capital 
gains rate on dividends and interest income. These bills would not only 
stimulate the economy, but also correct long-term problems with the tax 
code.

[[Page 119]]

   The economy is currently on the way to recovery but faces 
significant bottlenecks along the way. Following a mild recession, we 
are experiencing moderate growth. Many believe we will continue on a 
slow yet steady pace, but we are not yet in the clear. We must take 
aggressive steps to create jobs and ensure the economy gets moving 
again.
  The most effective tool government has for promoting growth is the 
tax code. By lowering taxes we allow people to keep more of their money 
and spend it more effectively than the government ever could.
   Lowering the taxes on investment income would stimulate the economy 
on several levels. First, we would leave more money in the pockets of 
families to spend. Second, lowering taxes on dividends would encourage 
investors to re-enter the stock market and realize higher returns since 
the government would be taking less. The increased demand for stocks 
would stabilize the market and encourage economic growth. Third, these 
tax cuts would ultimately help to reduce the deficit as tax revenues 
increase from higher economic growth and increased capital gains 
revenue.
  A tax cut on investment income would particularly help the elderly 
and others who rely on fixed incomes. A third of seniors received 
dividend income and more than half of dividends go to seniors. With 
such pressures as the rising cost of healthcare, it is critical that we 
let them keep as much of their money as possible. Also, these tax cuts 
would help a broad cross-section of Americans. For example, almost half 
of those who receive dividends have income of less than $50,000.
  One of the problems with our tax code is the double taxation of 
dividends. People have already paid taxes on the money they use to 
invest. Then they must pay taxes on their investment income. This is 
not fair and discourages savings.
  Also, companies must use after-tax dollars to pay dividends. 
Investors then have to pay taxes on their dividend income at the 
ordinary income tax rates. This leads to two unintended consequences.
  First, it encourages investors to focus on returns through stock 
price appreciation, which are taxed at the lower capital gains rate. 
People are encouraged to invest in higher growth, but often in riskier 
companies, rather than more stable, dividend-paying companies. As 
anyone can see from the collapse of stock prices in high-growth sectors 
over the past two years, the current incentives in the tax code may not 
lead to the best decisions for investors.
  Second, the double taxation of dividends encourages companies to 
raise capital by loading up on debt rather than issuing stock, because 
interest expense on debt can lower a company's taxes while dividend 
payments do not. This leads to an increase in highly leveraged 
companies that are at greater financial risk when the economy slows.
  Whether investors should invest in growth stocks is a decision that 
must be left to individuals. Likewise, the issuance of debt is best 
decided by the company in question. By lowering the tax rates on 
dividends and interest income, we would reduce the influence of taxes 
on these decisions.
  Increasingly, America is a Nation of investors. Today, half of U.S. 
households own stock. The number of shareholders has increased more 
than 60 percent since 1989. Thus, it is critical to ensure our tax laws 
lead to rational decisionmaking; decisions based on the best investment 
choices, not guided by tax inequities. Let's take tax rates out of the 
capital allocation decision process. People should make investment 
decisions based on what is the best investment.
  I call on the Senate to bolster the economy, help senior citizens 
meet their financial needs, and level the way we tax investment gains 
by lowering taxes on investment income. Today, I offer three 
alternatives I hope will lead to a constructive discussion and action 
to achieve these goals.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of the bills be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 24

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

     SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF DIVIDEND INCOME FROM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     inserting after section 115 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 116. EXCLUSION OF DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) Exclusion From Gross Income.--Gross income does not 
     include dividends otherwise includible in gross income which 
     are received during the taxable year by an individual.
       ``(b) Certain Dividends Excluded.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to any dividend from a corporation which, for the 
     taxable year of the corporation in which the distribution is 
     made, or for the next preceding taxable year of the 
     corporation, is a corporation exempt from tax under section 
     501 (relating to certain charitable, etc., organization) or 
     section 521 (relating to farmers' cooperative associations).
       ``(c) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Exclusion not to apply to capital gain dividends from 
     regulated investment companies and real estate investment 
     trusts.--

  ``For treatment of capital gain dividends, see sections 854(a) and 
857(c).
       ``(2) Certain nonresident aliens ineligible for 
     exclusion.--In the case of a nonresident alien individual, 
     subsection (a) shall apply only--
       ``(A) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year 
     pursuant to section 871(b)(1) and only in respect of 
     dividends which are effectively connected with the conduct of 
     a trade or business within the United States, or
       ``(B) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year 
     pursuant to section 877(b).
       ``(3) Dividends from employee stock ownership plans.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply to any dividend described in 
     section 404(k).''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 135(c)(4) of such Code 
     is amended by inserting ``116,'' before ``137''.
       (B) Subsection (d) of section 135 of such Code is amended 
     by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and by 
     inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Coordination with section 116.--This section shall be 
     applied before section 116.''
       (2) Subsection (c) of section 584 of such Code is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following new flush 
     sentence:

     ``The proportionate share of each participant in the amount 
     of dividends received by the common trust fund and to which 
     section 116 applies shall be considered for purposes of such 
     section as having been received by such participant.''
       (3) Subsection (a) of section 643 of such Code is amended 
     by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8) and by 
     inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Dividends.--There shall be included the amount of any 
     dividends excluded from gross income pursuant to section 
     116.''
       (4) Section 854(a) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``section 116 (relating to exclusion of dividends received by 
     individuals) and'' after ``For purposes of''.
       (5) Section 857(c) of such Code is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Restrictions Applicable to Dividends Received From 
     Real Estate Investment Trusts.--
       ``(1) Treatment for section 116.--For purposes of section 
     116 (relating to exclusion of dividends received by 
     individuals), a capital gain dividend (as defined in 
     subsection (b)(3)(C)) received from a real estate investment 
     trust which meets the requirements of this part shall not be 
     considered as a dividend.
       ``(2) Treatment for section 243.--For purposes of section 
     243 (relating to deductions for dividends received by 
     corporations), a dividend received from a real estate 
     investment trust which meets the requirements of this part 
     shall not be considered as a dividend.''
       (6) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 115 the following new item:

``Sec. 116. Exclusion of dividends received by individuals.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                  ____


                                 S. 25

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

     SECTION 1. DIVIDENDS OF INDIVIDUALS TAXED AT CAPITAL GAIN 
                   RATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to maximum capital gains rate) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) Dividends taxed as net capital gain.--

[[Page 120]]

       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `net capital gain' means net capital gain (determined 
     without regard to this paragraph), increased by qualified 
     dividend income.
       ``(B) Qualified dividend income.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified dividend income' 
     means dividends received from domestic corporations during 
     the taxable year.
       ``(ii) Certain dividends excluded.--Such term shall not 
     include--

       ``(I) any dividend from a corporation which for the taxable 
     year of the corporation in which the distribution is made, or 
     the preceding taxable year, is a corporation exempt from tax 
     under section 501 or 521,
       ``(II) any amount allowed as a deduction under section 591 
     (relating to deduction for dividends paid by mutual savings 
     banks, etc.), and
       ``(III) any dividend described in section 404(k).

       ``(iii) Minimum holding period.--Such term shall not 
     include any dividend on any share of stock with respect to 
     which the holding period requirements of section 246(c) are 
     not met.
       ``(C) Special rules.--
       ``(i) Amounts taken into account as investment income.--
     Qualified dividend income shall not include any amount which 
     the taxpayer takes into account as investment income under 
     section 163(d)(4)(B).
       ``(ii) Nonresident aliens.--In the case of a nonresident 
     alien individual, subparagraph (A) shall apply only--

       ``(I) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year 
     pursuant to section 871(b) and only in respect of amounts 
     which are effectively connected with the conduct of a trade 
     or business within the United States, and
       ``(II) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year 
     pursuant to section 877.

       ``(iii) Treatment of dividends from regulated investment 
     companies and real estate investment trusts.--

  ``For treatment of dividends from regulated investment companies and 
real estate investment trusts, see sections 854 and 857.''
       (b) Exclusion of Dividends From Investment Income.--
     Subparagraph (B) of section 163(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining net investment income) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following flush sentence:

     ``Such term shall include qualified dividend income (as 
     defined in section 1(h)(13)(B)) only to the extent the 
     taxpayer elects to treat such income as investment income for 
     purposes of this subsection.''
       (c) Treatment of Dividends From Regulated Investment 
     Companies.--
       (1) Subsection (a) of section 854 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to dividends received from regulated 
     investment companies) is amended by inserting ``section 
     1(h)(13) (relating to maximum rate of tax on dividends and 
     interest) and'' after ``For purposes of''.
       (2) Paragraph (1) of section 854(b) of such Code (relating 
     to other dividends) is amended by redesignating subparagraph 
     (B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (A) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Maximum rate under section 1(h).--
       ``(i) In general.--If the aggregate dividends received by a 
     regulated investment company during any taxable year is less 
     than 95 percent of its gross income, then, in computing the 
     maximum rate under section 1(h)(13), rules similar to the 
     rules of subparagraph (A) shall apply.
       ``(ii) Gross income.--For purposes of clause (i), in the 
     case of 1 or more sales or other dispositions of stock or 
     securities, the term `gross income' includes only the excess 
     of--

       ``(I) the net short-term capital gain from such sales or 
     dispositions, over
       ``(II) the net long-term capital loss from such sales or 
     dispositions.''

       (3) Subparagraph (C) of section 854(b)(1) of such Code, as 
     redesignated by paragraph (2), is amended by striking 
     ``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A) or 
     (B)''.
       (4) Paragraph (2) of section 854(b) of such Code is amended 
     by inserting ``the maximum rate under section 1(h)(13) and'' 
     after ``for purposes of''.
       (d) Treatment of Dividends Received From Real Estate 
     Investment Trusts.--Section 857(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to restrictions applicable to 
     dividends received from real estate investment trusts) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Restrictions Applicable To Dividends Received From 
     Real Estate Investment Trusts.--For purposes of section 
     1(h)(13) (relating to maximum rate of tax on dividends) and 
     section 243 (relating to deductions received by 
     corporations), a dividend received from a real estate 
     investment trust which meets the requirements of this part 
     shall not be considered a dividend.''
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                  ____


                                 S. 26

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

     SECTION 1. DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST OF INDIVIDUALS TAXED AT 
                   CAPITAL GAIN RATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to maximum capital gains rate) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) Dividends and interest taxed as net capital gain.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `net capital gain' means net capital gain (determined 
     without regard to this paragraph), increased by qualified 
     dividend income and qualified interest income.
       ``(B) Qualified dividend income.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified dividend income' 
     means dividends received from domestic corporations during 
     the taxable year.
       ``(ii) Certain dividends excluded.--Such term shall not 
     include--

       ``(I) any dividend from a corporation which for the taxable 
     year of the corporation in which the distribution is made, or 
     the preceding taxable year, is a corporation exempt from tax 
     under section 501 or 521,
       ``(II) any amount allowed as a deduction under section 591 
     (relating to deduction for dividends paid by mutual savings 
     banks, etc.), and
       ``(III) any dividend described in section 404(k).

       ``(iii) Minimum holding period.--Such term shall not 
     include any dividend on any share of stock with respect to 
     which the holding period requirements of section 246(c) are 
     not met.
       ``(C) Qualified interest income.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `qualified interest income' means--
       ``(i) interest on deposits with a bank (as defined in 
     section 581),
       ``(ii) amounts (whether or not designated as interest) 
     paid, in respect of deposits, investment certificates, or 
     withdrawable or repurchasable shares, by--

       ``(I) a mutual savings bank, cooperative bank, domestic 
     building and loan association, industrial loan association or 
     bank, or credit union, or
       ``(II) any other savings or thrift institution which is 
     chartered and supervised under Federal or State law,

     the deposits or accounts in which are insured under Federal 
     or State law or which are protected and guaranteed under 
     State law,
       ``(iii) interest on--

       ``(I) evidences of indebtedness (including bonds, 
     debentures, notes, and certificates) issued by a domestic 
     corporation in registered form, and
       ``(II) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary, other evidences of indebtedness issued by a 
     domestic corporation of a type offered by corporations to the 
     public,

       ``(iv) interest on obligations of the United States, a 
     State, or a political subdivision of a State (not excluded 
     from gross income of the taxpayer under any other provision 
     of law), and
       ``(v) interest attributable to participation shares in a 
     trust established and maintained by a corporation established 
     pursuant to Federal law.
       ``(D) Special rules.--
       ``(i) Amounts taken into account as investment income.--
     Qualified dividend income and qualified interest income shall 
     not include any amount which the taxpayer takes into account 
     as investment income under section 163(d)(4)(B).
       ``(ii) Nonresident aliens.--In the case of a nonresident 
     alien individual, subparagraph (A) shall apply only--

       ``(I) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year 
     pursuant to section 871(b) and only in respect of amounts 
     which are effectively connected with the conduct of a trade 
     or business within the United States, and
       ``(II) in determining the tax imposed for the taxable year 
     pursuant to section 877.

       ``(iii) Treatment of dividends from regulated investment 
     companies and real estate investment trusts.--

  ``For treatment of dividends from regulated investment companies and 
real estate investment trusts, see sections 854 and 857.''
       (b) Exclusion of Dividends and Interest From Investment 
     Income.--Subparagraph (B) of section 163(d)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining net investment 
     income) is amended by adding at the end the following flush 
     sentence:

     ``Such term shall include qualified dividend income (as 
     defined in section 1(h)(13)(B)) or qualified interest income 
     (as defined in section 1(h)(13)(C)) only to the extent the 
     taxpayer elects to treat such income as investment income for 
     purposes of this subsection.''
       (c) Treatment of Dividends From Regulated Investment 
     Companies.--
       (1) Subsection (a) of section 854 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to dividends received from regulated 
     investment companies) is amended by inserting ``section 
     1(h)(13) (relating to maximum rate of tax on dividends and 
     interest) and'' after ``For purposes of''.
       (2) Paragraph (1) of section 854(b) of such Code (relating 
     to other dividends) is amended by redesignating subparagraph 
     (B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (A) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Maximum rate under section 1(h).--
       ``(i) In general.--If the sum of the aggregate dividends 
     received, and the aggregate

[[Page 121]]

     interest described in section 1(h)(13)(C) received, by a 
     regulated investment company during any taxable year is less 
     than 95 percent of its gross income, then, in computing the 
     maximum rate under section 1(h)(13), rules similar to the 
     rules of subparagraph (A) shall apply.
       ``(ii) Gross income.--For purposes of clause (i), in the 
     case of 1 or more sales or other dispositions of stock or 
     securities, the term `gross income' includes only the excess 
     of--

       ``(I) the net short-term capital gain from such sales or 
     dispositions, over
       ``(II) the net long-term capital loss from such sales or 
     dispositions.''

       (3) Subparagraph (C) of section 854(b)(1) of such Code, as 
     redesignated by paragraph (2), is amended by striking 
     ``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A) or 
     (B)''.
       (4) Paragraph (2) of section 854(b) of such Code is amended 
     by inserting ``the maximum rate under section 1(h)(13) and'' 
     after ``for purposes of''.
       (d) Treatment of Dividends Received From Real Estate 
     Investment Trusts.--Section 857(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to restrictions applicable to 
     dividends received from real estate investment trusts) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Restrictions Applicable To Dividends Received From 
     Real Estate Investment Trusts.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 1(h)(13) 
     (relating to maximum rate of tax on dividends and interest) 
     and section 243 (relating to deductions received by 
     corporations), a dividend received from a real estate 
     investment trust which meets the requirements of this part 
     shall not be considered a dividend.
       ``(2) Treatment as interest.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of section 1(h)(13), in the 
     case of a dividend (other than a capital gain dividend, as 
     defined in subsection (b)(3)(C)) received from a real estate 
     investment trust which meets the requirements of this part 
     for the taxable year in which it paid--
       ``(i) such dividend shall be treated as interest if the 
     aggregate interest received by the real estate investment 
     trust for the taxable year equals or exceeds 75 percent of 
     its gross income, or
       ``(ii) if clause (i) does not apply, the portion of such 
     dividend which bears the same ratio to the amount of such 
     dividend as the aggregate interest received bears to gross 
     income shall be treated as interest.
       ``(B) Adjustments to gross income and aggregate interest 
     received.--For purposes of subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) gross income does not include the net capital gain,
       ``(ii) gross income and aggregate interest received shall 
     each be reduced by so much of the deduction allowable by 
     section 163 for the taxable year (other than for interest on 
     mortgages on real property owned by the real estate 
     investment trust) as does not exceed aggregate interest 
     received by the taxable year, and
       ``(iii) gross income shall be reduced by the sum of the 
     taxes imposed by paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 
     857(b).
       ``(C) Aggregate interest received.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, aggregate interest received shall be computed by 
     taking into account only interest which is described in 
     section 1(13)(C).
       ``(D) Notice to shareholders.--The amount of any 
     distribution by a real estate investment trust which may be 
     taken into account as interest for purposes of section 
     1(h)(13) shall not exceed the amount so designated by the 
     trust in a written notice to its shareholders mailed not 
     later than 45 days after the close of its taxable year.''
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. 
        Harkin):
  S. 27 A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to make 
it unlawful for packet to own, feed, or control livestock intended for 
slaughter; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the goal of the farm bill was to improve 
the economic condition of America's farmers over the next few years. 
However one of the many shortcomings of the new law is that it fails to 
protect family farmers and independent livestock producers from 
vertical integration in the livestock industry.
  In recent years, family farmers from across Iowa have contacted me to 
express their fears about the threat they fell from concentration in 
the livestock industry. They fear that if the trend toward increased 
concentration continues, they may be unable to compete effectively and 
will not be able to get a fair price for their livestock in the 
marketplace.
  The bill I am introducing would prevent meat packers from assuming 
complete control of the meat supply by preventing packers from owning 
livestock.
  This bill would make it unlawful for a packer to own or feed 
livestock intended for slaughter. Single pack entities and packs too 
small to participate in the Mandatory Price Reporting program would be 
excluded from the limitation. In addition, farmer cooperatives in which 
the members own, feed, or control the livestock themselves would be 
exempt under this new bill.
  We have tightened down the limitations in this new version of the 
packer ban. The last version provided an exemption to plants that 
killed less than 2 percent of the Nation's livestock, per commodity. 
That meant plants that killed less than 1.9 million pigs or 
approximately 725,000 cattle were excluded under the old version. We 
have changed the standard to be consistent with the Mandatory Price 
Reporting law and other legislation I've introduced. That means the new 
limit will be 125,000 for cattle and 100,000 for swine.
  It's also important to realize that this is not the original version 
I co-sponsored with Senator Johnson. Instead, this is the version I 
successfully offered on the floor during the debate on the farm bill 
that removed the word ``control'' so that the packers couldn't attack 
us with a red-herring argument.
  It's important for our colleagues to remember that family farmers 
ultimately derive their income from the agricultural marketplace, not 
the farm bill. Family farmers have unfortunately been in a position of 
weakness in selling their product to large processors and in buying 
their inputs from large suppliers.
  Today, the position of the family has become weaker as consolidation 
in agribusiness has reached all time highs. Farmers have fewer buyers 
and suppliers than ever before. The result is an increasing loss of 
family farms and the smallest farm share of the consumer dollar in 
history.
  One hundred years ago, this Nation reacted appropriately to citizen 
concerns about large, powerful companies by establishing rules 
constraining such businesses when they achieved a level of market power 
that harmed, or risked harming, the public interest, trade and 
commerce. The United State Congress enacted the first competition laws 
in the world to make commerce more free and fair. These competition 
laws include the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Federal Trade Commission Act 
and Packers & Stockyards Act.
  Since that time, many countries in the world have followed this U.S. 
example to constrain undue market power in their domestic economies.
  Unfortunately, competition policy has been severely weakened in this 
country, especially in agriculture, due to Federal case law, 
underfunded enforcement, and unfounded reliance on efficiency claims. 
The result has been a significant degradation of the domestic 
agricultural market infrastructure. The current situation reflects a 
tremendous mis-allocation of resources across the food chain. Congress 
must strengthen competition policy within the farm sector to reclaim a 
properly operating marketplace.
  While this legislation does not accomplish all that we need to do in 
this area, it's an important first step toward remedying the biggest 
problem facing farmers today, the problem of concentration.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no object, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 27

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PACKERS OWNING, FEEDING, OR 
                   CONTROLLING LIVESTOCK.

       (a) In General.--Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Own or feed livestock directly, through a subsidiary, 
     or through an arrangement that gives the packer operational, 
     managerial, or supervisory control over the livestock, or 
     over the farming operation that produces the livestock, to 
     such an extent

[[Page 122]]

     that the producer is no longer materially participating in 
     the management of the operation with respect to the 
     production of the livestock, except that this subsection 
     shall not apply to--
       ``(1) an arrangement entered into within 7 days (excluding 
     any Saturday or Sunday) before slaughter of the livestock by 
     a packer, a person acting through the packer, or a person 
     that directly or indirectly controls, or is controlled by or 
     under common control with, the packer;
       ``(2) a cooperative or entity owned by a cooperative, if a 
     majority of the ownership interest in the cooperative is held 
     by active cooperative members that--
       ``(A) own, feed, or control livestock; and
       ``(B) provide the livestock to the cooperative for 
     slaughter;
       ``(3) a packer that is not required to report to the 
     Secretary on each reporting day (as defined in section 212 of 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1635a)) 
     information on the price and quantity of livestock purchased 
     by the packer; or
       ``(4) a packer that owns 1 livestock processing plant; 
     or''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) take effect on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Transition rules.--In the case of a packer that on the 
     date of enactment of this Act owns, feeds, or controls 
     livestock intended for slaughter in violation of section 
     202(f) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (as amended by 
     subsection (a)), the amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
     to the packer--
       (A) in the case of a packer of swine, beginning on the date 
     that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (B) in the case of a packer of any other type of livestock, 
     beginning as soon as practicable, but not later than 180 
     days, after the date of enactment of this Act, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Allard):
  S. 30. A bill to redesignate the Colonnade Center in Denver, 
Colorado, as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building''; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
name the Federal building located at 1244 Speer Boulevard, Denver CO, 
as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building.''
  Cesar E. Chavez was an ordinary American who left behind an 
extraordinary legacy of commitment and accomplishment.
  Born on March 31, 1927 in Yuma, AZ on a farm his grandfather 
homesteaded in the 1880's, he began his life as a migrant farm worker 
at the age of 10 when the family lost the farm during the Great 
Depression. Those were desperate years for the Chavez family as they 
joined the thousands of displaced people who were forced to migrate 
throughout the country to labor in the fields and vineyards.
  Motivated by the poverty and harsh working conditions, he began to 
follow his dream of establishing an organization dedicated to helping 
these farm workers. In 1962 he founded the National Farm Workers 
Association which would eventually evolve into the United Farm Workers 
of America.
  Over the next three decades with an unwavering commitment to 
democratic principals and a philosophy of non-violence he struggled to 
secure a living wage, health benefits and safe working conditions for 
arguably the most exploited work force in our country, that they might 
enjoy the basic protections and worker's right to which all Americans 
aspire.
  In 1945, at the age of 18 Cesar Chavez joined the U.S. Navy and 
served his country for two years. He was the recipient of the Martin 
Luther King Jr. Peace Prize as well as the Presidential Medal of 
Freedom, the highest award this country can bestow upon a civilian.
  Chavez's efforts brought dignity and respect to this country's farm 
workers and in doing so became a hero, role model and inspiration to 
people engaged in human rights struggles throughout the world.
  The naming of this building will keep alive the memory of his 
sacrifice and commitment for the millions of people whose lives he 
touched.
  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. 30

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CESAR E. CHAVEZ MEMORIAL BUILDING.

       The building known as the ``Colonnade Center'', located at 
     1244 Speer Boulevard in Denver, Colorado, shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the building referred 
     to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 36. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate the geographic physician work adjustment factor from the 
geographic indices used to adjust payments under the physician fee 
schedule, to provide incentives necessary to attract educators and 
clinical practitioners to underserved areas, and to revise the area 
wage adjustment applicable under the prospective payment system for 
skilled nursing facilities; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues 
from Maine to introduce legislation to restore fairness to the Medicare 
program. This package of legislation will reduce regional inequalities 
in Medicare spending and support providers of high-quality, low-cost 
Medicare services.
  The high cost of health care in Wisconsin is skyrocketing: A survey 
issued a few days ago found that the cost of health care benefits for 
employees in this State rose 14.8 percent this year, to an average of 
$6,940 per employee. That's 20 percent high than the national average 
of $5,758 for workers in businesses with 500 or more employees.
  These costs are hitting our State hard, they are burdening businesses 
and employees, hurting health care providers, and preventing seniors 
from getting full access to the care that they deserve.
  One of the major contributing factors to the high cost in our state 
is the inherent unfairness of the Medicare Program.
  With the guidance and support of people across our State who are 
fighting for Medicare fairness. I have proposed this legislation to 
address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors, 
employers and health care providers. The Medicare program should 
encourage the kind of high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services 
that we have in Wisconsin. But as many in Wisconsin know, that's not 
the case.
  To give an idea of how inequitable the distribution of Medicare 
dollars is, imagine identical twins over the age of 65. Both twins 
worked at the same company all their lives, at the same salary, and 
paid the same amount to the Federal Government in payroll taxes, the 
tax that goes into the Medicare Trust Fund.
  But if one twin retired to New Orleans, Louisiana, and the other 
retired to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, they would have vastly different 
health options under the Medicare system. The twin in Louisiana would 
get much more.
  For example, in most parts of Louisiana, the first twin would have 
more options under Medicare. The high Medicare payments in those areas 
allow Medicare beneficiaries to choose between an HMO or traditional 
fee-for-service plan, and, because area health care providers are 
reimbursed at such a high rate, those providers can afford to offer 
seniors a broad range of health care services. The twin in Eau Claire 
does not have the same access to care, there are no options to choose 
from in terms of Medicare HMOs, and sometimes fewer health care 
agencies that can afford to provide care under the traditional fee-for-
service plan.
  How can two people with identical backgrounds, who paid the same 
amount in payroll taxes, have such different options under Medicare? 
They can because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 
States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and much of the Upper Midwest. 
Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but 
the Medicare funds

[[Page 123]]

we get in return are lower than those received in many other states.
  My legislation will take us a step in the right direction by reducing 
the inequities in Medicare payments to Wisconsin's hospitals, 
physicians, and skilled nursing facilities.
  Last year, with the introduction my Medicare fairness legislation 
along with the efforts of many other Senators, we put Medicare fairness 
issues front and center in Congress. The Senate Budget Committee 
approved my amendment to promote Medicare fairness in any Medicare 
reform package. A wide range of Senators from both parties endorsed my 
proposal to create a Medicare fairness coalition. The House passed a 
number of Medicare fairness provisions that were a result of these 
successes, and both House and Senate leadership endorsed Medicare 
fairness issues. Now that we have finally brought these issues the 
attention that they deserve, we need to build on that momentum to pass 
Medicare fairness provisions into law.
  My legislation demands Medicare fairness for Wisconsin and other 
affected States, plain and simple. Medicare shouldn't penalize high-
quality providers of Medicare services, most of all. Medicare should 
stop penalizing seniors who depend on the program for their health 
care. They have worked had and paid into the program all their lives, 
and in return they deserve full access to the wide range of benefits 
that Medicare has to offer.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation 
forward. I believe that we can re-balance the budget, while at the same 
time encouraging efficient, quality enhancing services, and that's what 
my legislation sets out to do.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 37. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to permit 
Kentucky to operate a separate retirement system for certain public 
employees; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to add Kentucky to the list of States that are permitted to offer 
``divided retirement'' plans under the Social Security Act.
  Last year, I was contacted by Brian James, President of the 
Louisville Fraternal Order of Police, FOP, and Tony Cobaugh, President 
of the Jefferson County FOP. These two law enforcement leaders called 
my attention to a problem that could jeopardize the retirement security 
of many of our community's police, fire, and emergency personnel.
  In November of 2000, the citizens of Jefferson County and the City of 
Louisville, Kentucky voted to merge their communities and respective 
governments into a single entity, which will be known as Greater 
Louisville. As one might expect, combining two large metropolitan 
governments in such a short time frame cannot be done without 
encountering a few difficulties along the way. Jefferson County and the 
City of Louisville currently operate two very different retirement 
programs for their police officers. When these two governments merge 
today, current federal law will require the new government to offer a 
single retirement plan that could dramatically increase the cost of 
retirement for both our dedicated public safety officers and the new 
Greater Louisville government.
  Thankfully, when the FOP's leaders called this problem to my 
attention, they also suggested a simple solution, let the police 
officers and firefighters choose for themselves the retirement system 
which best meets their needs.
  I rise today to offer legislation that will provide retirement 
stability to our public safety officers by allowing Kentucky to operate 
what is known as a ``divided retirement system.''
  With passage of my legislation and legislation already passed by the 
Kentucky General Assembly, Louisville's and Jefferson County's police 
officers would decide whether or not they want to participate in Social 
Security or remain in their traditional retirement plan. While future 
employees will be automatically enrolled in Social Security, no current 
officers would be forced into a new retirement system as a result of 
the merger without their approval.
  Current Federal law allows twenty-one States the option of offering 
divided retirement systems. Unfortunately, Kentucky is not one of these 
twenty-one states. The legislation I am offering today would change 
that by adding Kentucky to list of states designated in the Social 
Security Act.
  The language I introduce today was included in legislation, H.R. 
4070, that passed both the House and the Senate in the 107th Congress. 
Unfortunately, there were differences in the House and Senate versions 
of H.R. 4070, unrelated to the Louisville language, that were resolved 
only shortly prior to the adjournment of the 107th Congress. 
Unfortunately, the 107th Congress adjourned sine die before this 
compromise version of H.R. 4070 could be considered by both bodies of 
Congress.
  It is critical that the Senate provide this retirement stability to 
the brave men and women who protect the citizens of Louisville and 
Jefferson County everyday. There is extensive precedent for granting 
Kentucky this authority, and my legislation enjoys the broad, 
bipartisan support of policemen, firefighters, local and state 
officials, and the Social Security Administration.
  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. 37

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

     SECTION 1. COVERAGE UNDER DIVIDED RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR 
                   PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN KENTUCKY.

       (a) In General.--Section 218(d)(6)(C) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 418(d)(6)(C)) is amended by inserting 
     ``Kentucky,'' after ``Illinois,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on January 1, 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 39. A bill to promote the development of health care cooperatives 
that will help businesses to pool the health care purchasing power of 
employers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maine to introduce legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing 
cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, 
and to improve quality for their employees' health care.
  High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across 
the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access 
to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the 
system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than 
by what they need.
  The cost of health care in Wisconsin is skyrocketing: A recent survey 
found that the cost of health benefits for employees in Wisconsin rose 
14.8 percent this year, to an average of $6,940 per employee. That's 20 
percent higher than the national average of $5,758 for workers in 
businesses with 500 or more employees.
  We must curb these rapidly-increasing health care premiums. I 
strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to 
health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives 
to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' 
health care.
  By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers 
have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their 
employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, 
there are more than 90 employer-led coalitions across the United States 
that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses 
are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery 
of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions 
represent over 7,000 employers and approximately 34 million employees 
Nationwide.
  Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of 
care. By investing in the delivery of quality

[[Page 124]]

health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. 
Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall 
health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote 
these services and act as an employer forum for networking and 
education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help 
foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.
  Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and 
access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. 
Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and 
implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have 
formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a 
demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.
  In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that 
have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of 
care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance 
Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit 
cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane 
County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 170 member 
employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain 
affordable, high-quality health care for their 110,000 employees and 
dependents.
  This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such 
as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase 
access to affordable and high-quality health care.
  The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize 
grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group-
purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care 
rates, and improve quality.
  This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different 
types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both 
programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program 
would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while 
the second program would help small businesses that purchase their 
health insurance.
  My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective 
cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. 
First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from 
physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling 
their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could 
better attack the essential issues, such as rising health insurance 
rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would 
be able to share information regarding the quality of these services 
and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of 
their employees.
  For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the 
formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at 
lower prices through pooled purchasing.
  Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide 
employees of small businesses with better information about the health 
care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would 
serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships 
between their group and the health care providers.
  By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance 
plans and negotiate better rates.
  Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and 
have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an 
incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar 
businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pool are also 
given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as 
enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving 
quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which 
creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they 
will be invested in the organization.
  We must reform health care in America and give employers and 
employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the 
formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the 
quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the 
quality and costs of health care.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 40. A bill to prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered 
milk products or casein from being labeled as domestic natural cheese, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the Quality 
Cheese Act of 2003. This legislation will protect the consumer, save 
taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who 
have taken a beating in the marketplace in recent years.
  When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural 
Wisconsin cheese. But the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, may change current law, and 
consumers won't know whether cheese is really all natural or not.
  If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese 
ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying 
``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate.
  If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, imitation milk 
proteins known as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra 
filtered milk could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome 
natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other parts of the U.S.
  I am deeply concerned by recent efforts to change America's natural 
cheese standard. This effort to allow milk protein concentrate and 
casein into natural cheese products flies in the face of logic and 
could create a loophole that could allow unlimited amounts of 
substandard imported milk proteins to enter U.S. cheese vats.
  My legislation would close this loophole and ensure that consumers 
could be confident that they were buying natural cheese when they saw 
the natural label.
  Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace 
due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by 
dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese 
consumption has risen at a steady rate.
  Recent proposals to change to our natural cheese standards, however, 
could decrease consumption of natural cheese. These declines could 
result from concerns about the origin of casein and milk protein 
concentrate.
  The addition of this kind of milk could significantly tarnish the 
wholesome reputation of natural cheese in the eyes of the consumer.
  This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's 
dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is 
simply not fair to America's farmers!
  Consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is 
unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into cheese, 
we are denying consumers the entire picture.
  This legislation will require that labels paint the entire picture 
for the consumer, and allow them enough information to select cheese 
made from truly natural ingredients.
  Allowing MPCs or dry ultra-filtered milk into natural cheeses would 
also harm dairy producers throughout the United States. Some estimate 
that the annual effect of the change on the dairy farm sector of the 
economy could be more than $100 million.
  The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm 
the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will 
effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into 
the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these 
ingredients, these heavily-subsidized products would displace natural 
domestic dairy ingredients.
  These unnatural domestic dairy products would enter our domestic 
cheese market and might further depress

[[Page 125]]

dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices result 
in increased costs to the dairy price support program. So, at the same 
time that U.S. dairy farmers would receive lower prices, the U.S. 
taxpayer would pay more for the dairy price support program.
  This change does not benefit the dairy farmer, consumer or taxpayer. 
Who then is it good for?
  It would benefit only unscrupulous foreign MPC producers out to make 
a fast buck at the expense of Americans.
  This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and 
taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk from being included in 
America's natural cheese standard.
  Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to stack the deck 
against America's dairy farmers. And we must pass my legislation that 
prevents a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, 
taxpayer, and dairy farmer.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Daschle)
  S. 41. A bill to strike certain provisions of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296), and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on 
behalf of myself and Senator Daschle to remedy some problems in 
landmark legislation passed at the end of the last Congress, and signed 
into law by President Bush, to establish a Department of Homeland 
Security. The legislation we are offering today would strike seven 
extraneous special interest provisions inserted into the Homeland 
Security Act by Republican leadership in the bill's waning hours, 
provisions that are contrary to the bipartisan spirit in which the 
Homeland Security Act was conceived.
  Since the days following September 11, 2001, when terrorists 
viciously took the lives of 3,000 of our friends, family and fellow 
Americans, I have advocated establishing a Department of Homeland 
Security to beat the terrorist threat. Senator Arlen Specter, and I 
initially proposed creating a new department in October 2001. Our 
measure was not just bipartisan. It was in fact intended to be 
nonpartisan.
  Unfortunately, some partisan battles did ensue, primarily regarding 
longstanding civil service protections for homeland security workers, 
and I remain very concerned about the potential impact of these 
provisions. Nevertheless, the final bill was, for the most part, a 
critical, well-constructed piece of legislation that incorporated the 
majority of the provisions approved by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and which an overwhelming majority of the Senate embraced.
  In some very specific ways, however, the bill was flawed. In the 
final stages of passing the bill, the Republican leadership hastily 
inserted several special interest provisions that had no place in this 
measure. Most of these provisions had never been in any version of the 
legislation before the Senate before they were presented in a take-it-
or-leave-it package by Republicans, and several had not been considered 
by either chamber. The method and spirit in which these provisions 
found their way into what should have been a consensus piece of 
legislation was utterly objectionable and Senator Daschle and I made an 
effort to remove them at the time. That effort narrowly failed, but not 
before news of these special interest provisions had created great 
consternation for Democrats and the public, and even for some 
Republicans. Indeed, according to numerous published reports, the 
Republican leadership was able to muster the votes to preserve the 
provisions only after promising to revisit at least some of the most 
egregious additions during this session of Congress.
  I believe that the seven extraneous provisions my legislation targets 
hurt the Homeland Security Act as it was finally passed by the Congress 
and signed by the President. And I believe that, by attaching these 
measures to what could have and should have been a common cause, the 
Republican leadership all but admitted that the provisions cannot 
withstand independent scrutiny. Following are the provisions my bill 
would strike.
  First, perhaps the most egregious add-on to the Homeland Security Act 
was a provision that dramatically alters the way certain vaccine 
preservatives are treated for liability purposes under the law. To 
quickly summarize this very complicated issue, children who are hurt by 
childhood vaccines generally may not go directly to court to hold 
vaccine manufacturers liable. Instead, they have to go first to what's 
called the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which offers 
compensation for some of these claims. Parents argued, however, that 
the bar on lawsuits didn't use to apply to claims regarding faulty 
vaccine additives.
  These seemingly arcane legal distinctions were particularly important 
to a large number of parents of autistic children who have attributed 
their children's autism to thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative 
that used to be in some childhood vaccines. These parents sued the 
manufacturers of both vaccines and thimerosal, and they had many 
lawsuits pending in the courts as of last Fall.
  If you are wondering what any of this has to do with Homeland 
Security, you are doing exactly what we all did last November when in 
the waning days of debate on the Homeland Security bill, a provision 
addressing this issue appeared for the very first time in any version 
of the bill. That provision fundamentally altered the way vaccine 
additive claims would be treated from then on. With the swoop of a pen, 
the pending additive lawsuits against both vaccine and additive 
manufacturers were thrown out of court and, the provision's supporters 
alleged, sent into the compensation fund.
  As I said last Fall, I don't know whether there is any relationship 
between thimerosal and autism. I also don't know whether these cases 
really should be resolved in court or through the compensation fund. 
But I do know that figuring out where and how to resolve these claims 
is a very contentious, complex and challenging task, and is just one 
part of addressing broader problems with the vaccine compensation 
system. For example, the vaccine compensation fund's viability may be 
affected by the addition of claims regarding these additives. I also 
know that it is an issue that the committees of jurisdiction had been 
struggling with for a long time and that they should have been left to 
resolve. And I certainly know that a last second addition to the 
Homeland Security Act was absolutely the wrong way to deal with this 
issue and the wrong bill to use to take so many injured parents' and 
children's legal rights away. Indeed, we know that even more now, as it 
has become clear that while the provision closed the courthouse door to 
autistic children, it apparently didn't open the compensation fund 
window as its supporters said it would--because it didn't make the 
changes to either the fund's statute of limitations or to governing tax 
code provisions that would be necessary to obtain access to the fund 
for these cases.
  The bottom line is that this was a wrong and poorly conceived 
provision to put in the Homeland Security bill--something I thought 
even the Republican leadership acknowledged when they were forced to 
make promises to get rid of this provision in order to save their bill. 
We should scrap it now, and let the committee of jurisdiction undertake 
a careful review and, I hope, get it right this time.
  My legislation would also strike from the Act a measure that requires 
the Transportation Security Oversight Board to ratify within 90 days 
emergency security regulations issued by the Transportation Security 
Agency. If the oversight board does not ratify the regulations, they 
would automatically lapse. Despite the TSA having decided that they are 
necessary, 90 days later, lacking the board's approval, they'd 
disappear.
  This doesn't make any sense. In the current climate, shouldn't we be 
trying to find new ways to expedite and implement TSA rules, not always 
to disrupt and derail them? This provision is contrary to new 
procedures that the Senate passed in 2001 in the aviation security 
bill. Under that law, regulations

[[Page 126]]

go into effect and remain in effect unless they are affirmatively 
disapproved by the Board. I think that's a better system.
  Another provision would extend liability protection to companies that 
provided passenger and baggage screening in airports on September 11.
  But we in the Senate decided against extending such liability 
protection in at least two different contexts. First, the airline 
bailout bill limited the liability of the airlines, but not of the 
security screeners, due to ongoing concerns about their role leading up 
to September 11. Then, the conference report on the Transportation 
Security bill extended the liability limitations to others who might 
have been the target of lawsuits, such as aircraft manufacturers and 
airport operators, but again not to the baggage and passenger 
screeners.
  Like that little mole you hit with the mallet in a whack-a-mole game, 
somehow this provision reappeared in the Homeland Security Act. We must 
strike it.
  Another unnecessary and overreaching provision I seek to strike gives 
the Secretary of the new department broad authority to designate 
certain technologies as so-called ``qualified antiterrorism 
technologies.'' His granting of this designation, which appears to be 
unilateral, and probably not subject to review by anyone, would entitle 
companies selling that technology to broad liability protection from 
any claim arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of 
terrorism, no matter how negligently, or even wantonly and willfully, 
the company acted.
  This provision seems to say that in many cases, the plaintiff can't 
recover anything from the seller unless an injured plaintiff can prove 
that the seller of the product that injured him or her acted 
fraudulently or with willful misconduct in submitting information to 
the Secretary when the Secretary was deciding whether to certify the 
product.
  Even in cases where a seller isn't entitled to the benefit of that 
protection, the company still isn't fully, or in many cases even 
partially, responsible for its actions, even if it knew there was 
something terribly wrong with its product. Perhaps worst of all, this 
measure caps the seller's liability at the limits of its insurance 
policy. In other words, if injured people were lucky enough to get 
through the first hurdle and even hold a faulty seller liable, they 
still could go completely uncompensated even if a liable seller has 
more than enough money to compensate them.
  The Homeland Security Act unwisely and unnecessarily allows the 
Secretary to exempt the new department's advisory committees from the 
open meetings requirements and other requirements of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
  Agencies throughout government make use of advisory committees that 
function under these open meetings requirements. Existing law is 
careful to protect discussions and documents that involve sensitive 
information, in fact, the FACA law currently applies successfully to 
the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the State 
Department, even the secretive National Security Agency.
  So why should the Department of Homeland Security be allowed to 
exempt its advisory committees from its requirements? Why should its 
advisory committees be allowed to meet in total secret with no public 
knowledge?
  We all say that we're for ``good government,'' for openness, 
integrity, and accountability. But as it now stands, few of us will be 
able to say with confidence that the new department's advisory 
committees are designed to be as independent, balanced, and transparent 
as possible. I know full well that the Homeland Security Department 
will deal with sensitive information involving life and death, but so 
does the National Security Agency. So does the FBI. So does the 
Department of Defense. Their advisory committees aren't allowed to hide 
themselves away from the public.
  Finally, our legislation would alter a provision in the Act creating 
a university-based homeland security research center. Now, I have 
nothing against creating a university research center focused on 
homeland security.
  But there's a problem with this particular provision as it is 
written. The research center that it would create is described so 
narrowly, through 15 specific criteria, that it appears Texas A&M 
University has the inside track, to say the least, to get the funding 
and house the center.
  Science in this country has thrived over the years because, by and 
large, Congress has refused to intervene in science decisions. Science 
has thrived through peer review and competition over the best 
proposals--which are fundamentals of federal science policy. We are 
violating them here. This is nothing short of ``science pork.''
  When it comes to making these research funding decisions, we need a 
playing field that's truly level, not one that only looks level when 
you tilt your head.
  Our legislation keeps the university-based science center program. 
However, it removes the highly-specific criteria that appear to direct 
it to a particular university. That's the way we'll get the best 
science, not by making Congressional allocations to particular 
institutions.
  I'm extremely pleased we have created a Department of Homeland 
Security and plan to do everything I can to help ensure its success. 
But these flaws are real. They are serious. And they are utterly 
unnecessary. 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. 41

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002.

       (a) Stricken Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-296) is amended--
       (A) in section 308(b)(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Criteria for selection.--In selecting colleges or 
     universities as centers for homeland security, the Secretary 
     shall consider demonstrated expertise in interdisciplinary 
     public policy research and communication outreach regarding 
     science, technology, and public policy.'';
       (B) in section 311--
       (i) by striking subsection (i); and
       (ii) redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (i);
       (C) in title VIII, by striking subtitle G;
       (D) by striking section 871;
       (E) by striking section 890;
       (F) by striking section 1707; and
       (G) by striking sections 1714, 1715, 1716, and 1717.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendments.--The table of 
     contents for the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-296) is amended by striking the items relating to 
     subtitle G of title VIII, and sections 871, 890, 1707, 1714, 
     1715, 1716, and 1717.
       (b) Advisory Groups.--Section 232(b) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) To establish and maintain advisory groups to assess 
     the law enforcement technology needs of Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement agencies.''.
       (c) Waivers Relating to Contracts With Corporate 
     Expatriates.--Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by striking subsection 
     (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Waivers.--The Secretary shall waive subsection (a) 
     with respect to any specific contract if the Secretary 
     determines that the waiver is required in the interest of 
     homeland security.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     take effect as though enacted as part of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 42. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit 
the Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices for Class I 
milk on the distance or transportation costs from any location that is 
not within a marketing area, except under certain circumstances, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a measure which 
could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by 
the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal 
Milk Marketing Order system.

[[Page 127]]

  The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, 
establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout 
various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has 
discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a 
higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their 
farms from Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
  My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful 
and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the 
current archaic law, the price for fluid milk increases depending on 
the distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, even though most local milk 
markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin.
  The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of 
Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any 
location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities 
of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient 
market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory 
requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified 
in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in 
marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing 
simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in 
local and national markets.
  This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on 
specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the 
Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by 
the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition 
on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.
  This one change is so crucial to Upper Midwest producers, because the 
current system has penalized them for many years. The current system 
provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country 
and creating artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a 
result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk 
prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the 
prices have led to excess production.
  The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to 
ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an 
increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those 
manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed 
products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.
  The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact 
that since 1995 some regions of the U.S., notably the Central states 
and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually 
shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk 
prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets 
distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our 
manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further 
eroding prices in Wisconsin.
  The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in 
Federal orders are manifest in the Congressional Budget Office estimate 
that eliminating the orders would save $669 million over five years. 
Government outlays would fall, CBO concludes, because production would 
fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer 
government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and 
lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the 
current system. Economic analyses show that farm revenues in a market 
undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper 
Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.
  While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing 
fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was 
formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the 
primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to 
encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did 
not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.
  That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is not the primary 
source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't 
adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the 
dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, 
and specifically California, which now leads the Nation in milk 
production.
  The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper 
Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can 
compete in the market place, but because the system discriminates 
against it. Today, Wisconsin loses dairy farmers at a rate of more than 
5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is 
shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the 
region. Other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing 
rapidly.
  In an free market with a level playing field, these shifts in 
production might be fair. But in a market where the government is 
setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions 
outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this 
out dated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current 
milk marketing order pricing system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 43. A bill to allow modified bloc voting by cooperative 
associations of milk producers in connection with a referendum on 
Federal Milk Marketing Order reform; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition and Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce a measure that 
will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the 
Nation.
  When dairy farmers across the country voted on a referendum four 
years ago, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty 
years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing 
cooperatives cast their votes for them.
  This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. 
Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the 
interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular 
vote. It may serve the interest of time, but not always in the interest 
of their producer owner-members.
  I do think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some 
circumstances, but I have serious concerns about its use in every 
circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other states tell me that 
they do not agree with their Cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, 
they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote 
count.
  After speaking to farmers and officials at USDA, I have learned that 
if a Cooperative bloc votes, individual members simply have no 
opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you 
consider what significant issues may be at stake. Coops and their 
members do not always have identical interests. We shouldn't ask 
farmers to ignore that fact.
  The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2003 is simple and fair. It 
provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot if 
one or two or ten or all of the members chose to vote on their own.
  This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of 
any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect 
that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Coops 
could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their 
right to vote individually. And to the extent that coops represent 
farmers interest, farmers are likely to vote along with the coops, but 
whether they join the coops or not, farmers deserve the right to vote 
according to their own views.
  I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's 
farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 44. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the percentage depletion allowance for certain

[[Page 128]]

hardrock mines, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to 
eliminate from the Federal Tax Code percentage depletion allowances for 
hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I am pleased that the 
Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, is joining me as an original 
cosponsor.
  President Clinton proposed the elimination of the percentage 
depletion allowance on public lands in his FY 2001 budget. President 
Clinton's FY 2001 budget estimated that, under this legislation, income 
to the Federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion 
allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $487 million 
over 5 years and $1.20 billion over 10 years. The Joint Committee on 
Taxation estimated that it would save $410 million over 5 years and 
$823 million over 10 years. These savings are calculated as the excess 
amount of Federal revenues above what would be collected if depletion 
allowances were limited to sunk costs in capital investments. 
Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for 
extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These 
allowances have a combined value, according to estimates by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion.
  These percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the 
Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, these allowances were 
initiated nearly one hundred years ago. Provisions for a depletion 
allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 
Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this 
accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial 
codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 
1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in 
its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance 
was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by 
the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since.
  Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the Tax 
Code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction 
industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing 
incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. Percentage 
depletion also makes it possible, however, to recover many times the 
amount of the original investment.
  There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to 
recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion, and 
percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the 
actual capital investment, the costs of discovering, purchasing, and 
developing a mineral reserve, over the period during which the reserve 
produces income. Using cost depletion, a company would deduct a portion 
of its original capital investment minus any previous deductions, in an 
amount that is equal to the fraction of the remaining recoverable 
reserves. Under this method, the total deductions cannot exceed the 
original capital investment.
  Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a 
company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, 
sales revenue--from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total 
deductions typically exceed, let me be clear on that point, exceed the 
capital that the company invested.
  The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 
of the U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals 
and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent.
  In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for 
minerals mined on public lands, my bill would also create a new fund, 
called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One fourth of the revenue 
raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million dollars, would be 
deposited into an interest bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to 
clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 
1872 Mining Law. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 
557,650 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide and the cost of 
clearing them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion.
  There are currently no comprehensive Federal or State programs to 
address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites 
requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up 
abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a 
first step toward providing the needed authority and resources.
  In today's budget climate we are faced with the question of who 
should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of 
natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the 
resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying 
next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public 
lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the 
nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget 
choices this fiscal year, yet these subsidies remain persistent tax 
expenditures that raise the deficit for all citizens or shift a greater 
tax burden to other taxpayers to compensate for the special tax breaks 
provided to the mining industry.
  The measure I am introducing is fairly straightforward. It eliminates 
the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on 
public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable 
cost depletion.
  Though at one time, there may have been an appropriate role for a 
government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is 
now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance 
that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses.
  The time has come for the Federal Government to get out of the 
business of subsidizing one business over another. We can no longer 
afford its costs in dollars or its cost to the health of our citizens. 
This legislation is one step toward the goal of ending these corporate 
welfare subsidies.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 44

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Elimination of Double 
     Subsidies for the Hardrock Mining Industry Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PERCENTAGE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN 
                   HARDROCK MINES.

       (a) In General.--Section 613(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to percentage depletion) is amended by 
     inserting ``(other than hardrock mines located on lands 
     subject to the general mining laws or on land patented under 
     the general mining laws)'' after ``In the case of the 
     mines''.
       (b) General Mining Laws Defined.--Section 613 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(f) General Mining Laws.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     the term ``general mining laws'' means those Acts which 
     generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161 
     and 162 of title 30 of the United States Code.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.

     SEC. 3. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to establishment of trust 
     funds) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 9511. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Abandoned Mine Reclamation Trust Fund' (in this section 
     referred to as `Trust Fund'), consisting of such amounts as 
     may be appropriated or credited to the Trust Fund as provided 
     in this section or section 9602(b).
       ``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--There are hereby 
     appropriated to the Trust Fund amounts equivalent to 25 
     percent of the additional revenues received in the Treasury 
     by reason of the amendments made by section 2 of the 
     Elimination of Double Subsidies for the Hardrock Mining 
     Industry Act of 2003.
       ``(c) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts in the Trust Fund shall be 
     available, as provided in appropriation Acts, to the 
     Secretary of the Interior for--
       ``(ii) for which the Secretary of the Interior makes a 
     determination that there is no

[[Page 129]]

     continuing reclamation responsibility under State or Federal 
     law, and
       ``(iii) for which it can be established to the satisfaction 
     of the Secretary of the Interior that such lands or resources 
     do not contain minerals which could economically be extracted 
     through remining of such lands or resources.
       ``(B) Certain sites and areas excluded.--The lands and 
     water resources described in this paragraph shall not include 
     sites and areas which are designated for remedial action 
     under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 
     (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) or which are listed for remedial 
     action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
     Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.).
       ``(3) General mining laws.--For purposes of paragraph (2), 
     the term `general mining laws' means those Acts which 
     generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161 
     and 162 of title 30 of the United States Code.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 9511.  Abandoned Mine Reclamation Trust Fund.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 45. A bill to make changes to the Office for State and Local 
Government Coordination, Department of Homeland Security; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague from Maine 
to introduce legislation to help first responders do what they do so 
well, protect our communities in an emergency.
  The Department of Homeland Security will create a massive shift in 
the Federal Government. Nobody will feel the impact of this shift more 
than the brave men and women who work in law enforcement, as 
firefighters, as rescue workers, as emergency medical service 
providers, and in capacities as first responders.
  We must make sure that these first responders have the resources that 
they need.
  While I commend the Administration for raising the funding dedicated 
to first responders in the President's budget, I am concerned that new 
layers of bureaucracy and reorganization could reduce these funding 
levels, or just as harmful, put up barriers to first responders 
actually receiving these funds.
  The Federal agencies in the proposed Department of Homeland Security 
must listen to the priorities of our communities. After all, the needs 
of first responders vary between regions, as well as between rural and 
urban communities. In Wisconsin, I have heard needs ranging from 
training to equipment to more emergency personnel in the field, just to 
name a few.
  My legislation would promote effective coordination among Federal 
agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and ensure that our 
first responders, our firefighters, law enforcement, rescue, and EMS 
providers, can help Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland 
Security to improve existing programs and future initiatives.
  It would first establish a Federal Liaison on Homeland Security in 
each state and coordinate between the Department of Homeland Security 
and state and local first responders.
  This office would serve not only as an avenue to exchange ideas, but 
also as a resource to ensure that the funding and programs are 
effective.
  For example, my hope is that the Homeland Security Department will 
make programs such as the Fire Act a high priority. The Fire Act 
provides grants directly to fire departments across our nation for 
training and equipment needs. I recently visited one excellent example 
of this program in West Allis, Wisconsin, where the Department received 
a grant in 2001 to implement a wellness and fitness program for their 
firefighters. I am told that it is one of the first departments in the 
State to meet the goals of this program, and I commend the department 
for its efforts.
  My legislation would also direct the agencies within the Department 
of Homeland Security to coordinate and prioritize their activities that 
support first responders, and at the same time, ensure effective use of 
taxpayer dollars.
  As part of this coordination, the First Responders Support Act 
establishes a new advisory committee of those in the first responder 
community to identify and streamline effective programs.
  Last year, both the original Senate and House homeland security bills 
lacked the provisions needed to ensure that the new Department of 
Homeland Security communicates and coordinates effectively with first 
responders.
  During the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up of the 
Homeland Security bill, the Committee added our First Responders 
Support Act to the legislation. They did so knowing that we would have 
to reconcile the overlap between our legislation and the language in 
the Chairman's mark creating an office for state and local government 
coordination. Our amendment, which was approved by the full Senate, did 
just that. Unfortunately, our proposal was dropped from the final bill 
during backroom negotiations.
  Because of this omission, I promised to make enacting this 
legislation one of our top priorities this Congress. That's why we are 
re-introducing this legislation today.
  We must be aggressive in seeking the advice of our first responders, 
and helping them get the resources that they need to provide effective 
services. They are on the front lines, and deserve our strong support.
  In almost any disaster, the local first responders and health care 
providers play an indispensable role. If the Department of Homeland 
Security is to be effective, we need to ensure that the resources are 
delivered to the front line personnel in an effective and coordinated 
manner. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal 
and support our first responders.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 47. A bill to terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency 
Communication System of the Navy; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation 
that would terminate the operation of the Navy's Extremely Low 
Frequency communications system, Project ELF, which is located in Clam 
Lake, WI, and Republic, MI.
  I would like to thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, 
and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for cosponsoring this bill.
  Project ELF is a Cold War relic that was designed to send short one-
way messages to ballistic and attack submarines that are submerged in 
deep waters. The bill that I am introducing today would terminate 
operations at Project ELF, while maintaining the infrastructure in 
Wisconsin and Michigan in the event that a resumption in operations 
becomes necessary.
  Project ELF is ineffective and unnecessary in the post-Cold War era. 
This antiquated system does not facilitate the rapid mobilization that 
our military says it needs to respond to current threats from weapons 
of mass destruction. The horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, 
emphasized the need for rapid, reliable two-way communications. Since 
ELF cannot transmit detailed messages, it serves as an expensive 
``beeper'' system to tell submarines to come to the surface to receive 
messages from other sources, and the subs cannot send a return message 
to ELF in the event of an emergency. It takes ELF four minutes to send 
a three-letter message to a deeply submerged submarine.
  With the end of the Cold War, Project ELF becomes harder and harder 
to justify. Our submarines no longer need to take that extra precaution 
against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a regular basis 
with less danger of detection or attack. They can also receive more 
complicated messages through very low frequency, VLF, radio waves or 
lengthier messages through satellite systems. Taxpayers should not be 
asked to continue to pay for what amounts to a beeper system that tells 
our submarines to come to the surface to receive orders from another, 
more sophisticated source.
  Further, continued operation of this facility is opposed by most 
residents in

[[Page 130]]

my state. The members of the Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for 
years to close down Project ELF. I have introduced legislation during 
each Congress since taking office in 1993 to terminate it, and I have 
recommended it for closure to the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission.
  Project ELF has had a turbulent history. Since the idea for ELF was 
first proposed in 1958, the project has been changed or canceled 
several times. Residents of Wisconsin have opposed ELF since its 
inception, but for years we were told that the national security 
considerations of the Cold War outweighed our concerns about this 
installation in our State. Ironically, this system became fully 
operational in 1989, the same year the tide of democracy began to sweep 
across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Now, fourteen years later, 
the hammer and sickle has fallen and the Russian submarine fleet is in 
disarray. But Project ELF still remains as a constant, expensive 
reminder to the people of my State that many at the Department of 
Defense remain focused on the past.
  There also continue to be a number of public health and environmental 
concerns associated with Project ELF. For almost two decades, we have 
received inconclusive data on this project's effects on Wisconsin and 
Michigan residents. In 1984, a U.S. District Court ordered that ELF be 
shut down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to the system's 
possible health effects and violated the National Environmental Policy 
Act. Interestingly, that decision was overturned because U.S. national 
security, at the time, prevailed over public health and environmental 
concerns.
  Numerous medical studies point to a possible link between exposure to 
extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and a variety of human 
health effects and abnormalities in both animal and plant species.
  In 1999, after six years of research, the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences released a report that did not prove 
conclusively a link between electromagnetic fields and cancer, but the 
report did not disprove it, either. Serious questions remain, and many 
of my constituents are rightly concerned about this issue.
  In addition, I have heard from a number of dairy farmers who are 
convinced that the stray voltage associated with ELF transmitters has 
demonstrably reduced milk production. As we continue our efforts to 
return to a sustainable balanced federal budget, and as the Department 
of Defense continues to struggle to address readiness and other 
concerns, it is clear that outdated programs such as Project ELF should 
be closed down.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 47

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

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OPERATION OF EXTREMELY LOW 
                   FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.

       (a) Termination Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     terminate the operation of the Extremely Low Frequency 
     Communication System of the Navy.
       (b) Maintenance of Infrastructure.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain the infrastructure necessary for resuming operation 
     of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 48. A bill to repeal the provisions of law that provides automatic 
pay adjustments for Members of Congress; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation 
that would put an end to automatic cost-of-living adjustments for 
Congressional pay.
  As my Colleagues are aware, it is an unusual thing to have the power 
to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our 
constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual 
is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to 
exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, 
amendment, and a vote on the record.
  Regrettably, current law permits Members to avoid such an open 
procedure. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is 
that nothing be done to stop it. Unless Congress affirmatively acts, 
the annual pay raise takes effect.
  This stealth pay raise technique began with a change Congress enacted 
in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. In section 704 of that Act, Members 
of Congress voted to make themselves entitled to an annual raise equal 
to half a percentage point less than the employment cost index, one 
measure of inflation.
  On occasion, Congress has voted to deny itself the raise. 
Traditionally, this has been done on the Treasury-Postal appropriations 
bill. But that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a 
public debate and vote on the matter. In one instance, the Treasury-
Postal bill was slipped into the conference report on the Legislative 
Branch appropriations bill, and thus completely shielded from 
amendment. And during 2002, the Senate did not consider the Treasury-
Postal bill at all.
  This makes getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise a 
haphazard affair at best. And it should not be that way. No one should 
have to force a debate and public vote on the pay raise. On the 
contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a 
hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must 
end.
  The question of how and whether Members of Congress can raise their 
own pay was one that our Founders considered from the beginning of our 
Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments 
advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of 
Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the 
Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an 
intervening election. Almost 214 years ago, on September 9, 1789, the 
Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress 
submitted the amendments to the States.
  Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in 
the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the 
Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its 
approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed 
approval by three-fourths of the States.
  The 27th Amendment to the Constitution now states: `No law, varying 
the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, 
shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have 
intervened.''
  I try to honor that limitation in my own practices. In my own case, 
throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators 
receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return 
to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a 
cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't 
take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at 
the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th Amendment. The stealth 
pay raises like the one that Congress allowed last year, at a minimum, 
certainly violate the spirit of that amendment.
  This practice must end. To address it, I am reintroducing this bill 
to end the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for Congressional pay. 
Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up-or-down to raise 
Congressional pay. My bill would simply require us to vote in the open. 
We owe our constituents no less.
  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. 48

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

[[Page 131]]



     SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR 
                   MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is 
     repealed.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a)(1) 
     of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
       (3) by striking ``as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection'' and inserting ``adjusted as provided by law''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     February 1, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 49. A bill to reduce the deficit of the United States; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a measure aimed 
at curbing wasteful spending. In the face of our return to Federal 
deficits, we must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer 
be sustained with limited Federal dollars, or where a more cost-
effective means of fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The 
measure that I introduce today eliminates or modifies three Federal 
programs: it establishes a means test for large agribusinesses 
receiving subsidized water from the Bureau of Reclamation, it 
terminates the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 
USUHS, a medical school run by the Department of Defense, and it ends 
the future production of submarine launched D5 missiles, commonly known 
as the Trident II missiles. Eliminating or reforming these three 
programs would save the taxpayers in excess of $8 billion over ten 
years.
  The irrigation means test provision is drawn from legislation that I 
that have sponsored in previous Congresses to reduce the amount of 
Federal irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. 
I believe that reforming Federal water pricing policy by reducing 
subsidies is important as a means to achieve our broader objectives of 
achieving a truly balanced budget. This legislation is also needed to 
curb fundamental abuses of reclamation law that cost the taxpayer 
millions of dollars every year.
  In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which 
came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage 
development of family farms throughout the western United States. The 
idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and 
give small farms, those no larger than 160 acres, a chance, with a 
helping hand from the Federal Government, to establish themselves. 
According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage 
of the Reclamation Act, the Federal Government has spent $21.8 billion 
to construct 133 water projects in the west which provide water for 
irrigation. Agribusinesses, and other project beneficiaries, are 
required under the law to repay to the Federal Government their 
allocated share of the costs of constructing these projects.
  As a result of the subsidized financing provided by the Federal 
Government, however, some of the beneficiaries of Federal water 
projects repay considerably less than their full share of these costs. 
According to the 1996 GAO report, agribusinesses generally receive the 
largest amount of Federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of 
the irrigation program in 1902, construction costs associated with 
irrigation have been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in 
reviewing the Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9 
billion, or 78 percent, of the $21.8 billion of Federal investment in 
water projects is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable 
costs, the largest share, $7.1 billion, is allocated to irrigation 
interests. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will likely 
shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by agribusinesses to other users of 
the water projects for repayment.
  There are several reasons why large agribusinesses continue to 
receive such significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 
1982, Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive 
subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly 
prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally-
subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the Reclamation law 
to close loopholes through which Federal subsidies were flowing to 
large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that 
Reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were 
expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of 
their 960 acre entitlement.
  Despite the express mandate of Congress, regulations promulgated 
under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have failed to keep big 
agricultural water users from receiving Federal subsidies. The General 
Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of the 
Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law 
are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming 
trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage well exceed the 960 acre 
limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the 
reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single 
management agreement often through a combination of leasing and 
ownership.
  The Department of the Interior has acknowledged that these trusts do 
exist. Interior published a final rulemaking in 1998 to require farm 
operators who provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres 
westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of 
trusts and legal entities to submit RRA forms to the district(s) where 
such land is located. Water districts are now required to provide 
specific information about farm operators to Interior annually. This 
information is an important step toward enforcing the legislation that 
I am reintroducing today.
  My legislation combines various elements of proposals introduced by 
other members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation 
and to impose a $500,000 means-test. This new approach limits the 
amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in 
excess of the 960 acre limit which claimed $500,000 or more in gross 
income, as reported on its most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000 
threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would be used to determine how 
much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost 
rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre 
operation earned $1 million dollars, a ratio of $500,000, the means-
test value, divided by its gross income would determine the full cost 
rate. Thus the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their 
acreage and the below-cost rate on the remaining half.
  This means-testing proposal was featured in the 2000 Green Scissors 
report. This report is compiled annually by Friends of the Earth and 
Taxpayers for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental, 
consumer and taxpayer groups. The premise of the report is that there 
are a number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce 
the deficit and benefit the environment. The Green Scissors 
recommendation on means-testing water subsidies indicates that if a 
test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest grossing 
10 percent of farms, then the Federal Government would recover between 
$440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2 billion over 
five years.
  When countless Federal programs are subjected to various types of 
means-tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it 
makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip 
into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive. 
Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard-
earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate 
interests in select regions of the country, particularly in tight 
budgetary times.
  The second element of my bill will help our Armed Services obtain 
physician services at a more reasonable cost by terminating the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS. The 
measure is one I proposed when I ran for the U.S. Senate, and was part 
of a larger, 82-point plan to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The 
most

[[Page 132]]

recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, project that 
terminating the school would save $273 million over the next five 
years, and when completely phased-out, would generate $450 million in 
savings over five years.
  USUHS was created in 1972 to meet an expected shortage of military 
medical personnel. Today, however, USUHS accounts for only a small 
fraction of the military's new physicians, less than 12 percent in 
1994, according to CBO. This contrasts dramatically with the military's 
scholarship program, which provided over 80 percent of the military's 
new physicians in that year.
  What is even more troubling is that USUHS is also the single most 
costly source of new physicians for the military. CBO reports that 
based on figures from 1995, each USUHS trained physician costs the 
military $615,000. By comparison, the scholarship program cost about 
$125,000 per doctor, with other sources providing new physicians at a 
cost of $60,000. As CBO has noted, even adjusting for the lengthier 
service commitment required of USUHS trained physicians, the cost of 
training them is still higher than that of training physicians from 
other sources, an assessment shared by the Pentagon itself. Indeed, 
CBO's estimate of the savings generated by this measure also includes 
the cost of obtaining physicians from other sources.
  The House of Representatives has voted to terminate this program on 
several occasions, joining others, ranging from the Grace Commission to 
the CBO, in raising the question of whether this medical school, which 
graduated its first class in 1980, should be closed because it is so 
much more costly than alternative sources of physicians for the 
military.
  The real issue we must address is whether USUHS is essential to the 
needs of today's military structure, or if we can do without this 
costly program. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite the higher 
retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained from other 
sources as a justification for continuation of this program, but while 
a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain in the 
military longer than those from other sources, the Pentagon indicates 
that the alternative sources already provide an appropriate mix of 
retention rates. Testimony by the Department of Defense before the 
Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel noted that the 
military's scholarship program meets the retention needs of the 
services.
  And while USUHS provides only a small fraction of the military's new 
physicians, relying primarily on these other sources has not 
compromised the ability of military physicians to meet the needs of the 
Pentagon. According to the Office of Management and Budget, of the 
approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert Storm, only 103, about 
5 percent, were USUHS trained.
  USUHS has some dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize 
that there are legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in 
defense of this institution. The problem, however, is that the Federal 
Government cannot afford to continue every program that provides some 
useful function, especially when such services can be procured 
elsewhere.
  The final provision of my legislation terminates another wasteful 
defense program, the continued production of new Trident II submarine-
launched ballistic missiles. Trident submarines, and the deadly 
submarine-launched ballistic missiles they carry, were designed 
specifically to attack targets inside the Soviet Union from waters off 
the continental United States.
  Let me say at the outset that this provision would in no way prevent 
the Navy from maintaining the current arsenal of Trident II missiles. 
Nor would it affect those Trident II missiles that are currently in 
production.
  The Navy currently has ten Trident II submarines, each of which 
carries 24 Trident II, D5, missiles. Each of these missiles contains 
eight independently targetable nuclear warheads, for a total of 192 
warheads per submarine. Each warhead packs between 300 to 450 kilotons 
of explosive power.
  By way of comparison, the first atomic bomb that the United States 
dropped on Hiroshima generated 15 kilotons of force. Let's do the math 
for just one fully-equipped Trident II submarine. Each warhead can 
generate up to 450 kilotons of force. Each missile has eight warheads, 
and each submarine has 24 missiles. That equals 86.4 megatons of force 
per submarine. That means that each Trident II submarine carries the 
power to deliver devastation which is the equivalent of 5,760 
Hiroshimas.
  And that is just one fully equipped submarine. As I noted earlier, 
the Navy currently has ten such submarines.
  Through fiscal year 2003, the Navy will have been authorized to 
purchase 408 Trident II missiles for these submarines. Even taking into 
account the 86 Trident II missiles that have been expended in testing 
through calendar year 2002, the Navy will still have 322 missiles in 
stock once those authorized to be purchased during FY2003 are 
completed.
  The Navy needs 240 missiles to fully equip ten Trident II submarines 
with 24 missiles each. That leaves 82 ``extra'' missiles in the Navy's 
inventory. And the Navy still plans to buy at least 132 more missiles 
over the next two years, for a total purchase of 540 missiles. My bill 
would terminate production of these missiles after the currently 
authorized 408, saving taxpayers $6.6 billion over the next ten years.
  The tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the recent resumption of 
nuclear activities by North Korea, serve as chilling reminders that 
there is still a potential threat from rogue states, and from 
independent operators such as al-Qaeda, who seek to acquire ballistic 
missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. I also recognize that 
our submarine fleet and our arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons still 
have an important role to play in warding off these threats. Their 
role, however, has diminished dramatically from what it was at the 
height of the Cold War. Our missile procurement decisions should 
reflect that change and should reflect the realities of the post-Cold 
War world.
  Our current ballistic missile capability is far superior to that of 
any other county on the globe. And the capability of the Russian 
military, the very force which these missiles were designed to counter, 
is seriously degraded.
  We should not be buying more Trident II missiles at a time when the 
governments of the United States and Russia have signed the Moscow 
Treaty, which calls for deep reductions in our nuclear forces. To spend 
scarce resources on building more missiles now is short-sighted and 
could seriously undermine our efforts to negotiate further arms 
reductions with Russia.
  In conclusion, the time has come to rethink our Federal budget 
priorities, and to redirect needed funds appropriately. Eliminating or 
reforming these three programs will go a long way to doing just that, 
and I urge Congress to act swiftly to save money for the taxpayers. I 
ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 49

       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 `Deficit Reduction Act of 
     2003'.

     TITLE I--REFORMED BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WATER PRICING

     SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the `Irrigation Subsidy Reduction 
     Act of 2001'.

     SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal reclamation program has been in existence 
     for over 90 years, with an estimated taxpayer investment of 
     over $70,000,000,000;
       (2) the program has had and continues to have an enormous 
     effect on the water resources and aquatic environments of the 
     western States;
       (3) irrigation water made available from Federal water 
     projects in the West is a very valuable resource for which 
     there are increasing and competing demands;
       (4) the justification for providing water at less than full 
     cost was to benefit and promote the development of small 
     family farms and exclude large corporate farms, but this 
     purpose has been frustrated over the years

[[Page 133]]

     due to inadequate implementation of subsidy and acreage 
     limits;
       (5) below-cost water prices tend to encourage excessive use 
     of scarce water supplies in the arid regions of the West, and 
     reasonable price increases to the wealthiest western farmers 
     would provide an economic incentive for greater water 
     conservation;
       (6) the Federal Government has increasingly applied 
     eligibility tests based on income for Federal entitlement and 
     subsidy programs, measures that are consistent with the 
     historic approach of the reclamation program's acreage 
     limitations that seek to limit water subsidies to small 
     farms; and
       (7) including a means test based on gross income in the 
     reclamation program will increase the effectiveness of 
     carrying out the family farm goals of the Federal reclamation 
     laws.

     SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions--Section 202 of the Reclamation Reform Act 
     of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390bb) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (8), (9), (10), and 
     (11) as paragraphs (9), (10), (11), (12), and (13), 
     respectively;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking `owned or operated under 
     a lease which' and inserting `that is owned, leased, or 
     operated by an individual or legal entity and that';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       `(7) Legal entity--The term `legal entity' includes a 
     corporation, association, partnership, trust, joint tenancy, 
     or tenancy in common, or any other entity that owns, leases, 
     or operates a farm operation for the benefit of more than 1 
     individual under any form of agreement or arrangement.
       ``(8) Operator--
       ``(A) In general--The term `operator'--
       ``(i) means an individual or legal entity that operates a 
     single farm operation on a parcel (or parcel) of land that is 
     owned or leased by another person (or persons) under any form 
     of agreement or arrangement (or agreements or arrangements); 
     and
       ``(ii) if the individual or legal entity--
       ``(I) is an employee of an individual or legal entity, 
     includes the individual or legal entity; or
       ``(II) is a legal entity that controls, is controlled by, 
     or is under common control with another legal entity, 
     includes each such other legal entity.
       ``(B) Operation of a farm operation--For the purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), an individual or legal entity shall be 
     considered to operate a farm operation if the individual or 
     legal entity is the person that performs the greatest 
     proportion of the decisionmaking for and supervision of the 
     agricultural enterprise on land served with irrigation 
     water.'; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Single farm operation--
       ``(A) In general--The term `single farm operation' means 
     the total acreage of land served with irrigation water for 
     which an individual or legal entity is the operator.
       ``(B) Rules for determining whether separate parcels are 
     operated as a single farm operation--
       ``(i) Equipment--and labor-sharing activities--The conduct 
     of equipment- and labor-sharing activities on separate 
     parcels of land by separate individuals or legal entities 
     shall not by itself serve as a basis for concluding that the 
     farming operations of the individuals or legal entities 
     constitute a single farm operation.
       ``(ii) Performance of certain services--The performance by 
     an individual or legal entity of an agricultural chemical 
     application, pruning, or harvesting for a farm operation on a 
     parcel of land shall not by itself serve as a basis for 
     concluding that the farm operation on that parcel of land is 
     part of a single farm operation operated by the individual or 
     entity on other parcels of land.'.
       (b) Identification of Owners, Lessees, and Operators and of 
     Single Farm Operations--The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 
     (43 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 201 the following:

     ``SEC. 201A. IDENTIFICATION OF OWNERS, LESSEES, AND OPERATORS 
                   AND OF SINGLE FARM OPERATIONS.

       ``(a) In General--Subject to subsection (b), for each 
     parcel of land to which irrigation water is delivered or 
     proposed to be delivered, the Secretary shall identify a 
     single individual or legal entity as the owner, lessee, or 
     operator.
       ``(b) Shared Decisionmaking and Supervision--If the 
     Secretary determines that no single individual or legal 
     entity is the owner, lessee, or other individual that 
     performs the greatest proportion of decisionmaking for and 
     supervision of the agricultural enterprise on a parcel of 
     land--
       ``(1) all individuals and legal entities that own, lease, 
     or perform a proportion of decisionmaking and supervision 
     that is equal as among themselves but greater than the 
     proportion performed by any other individual or legal entity 
     shall be considered jointly to be the owner, lessee, or 
     operator; and
       ``(2) all parcels of land of which any such individual or 
     legal entity is the owner, lessee, or operator shall be 
     considered to be part of the single farm operation of the 
     owner, lessee, or operator identified under subsection (1);
       (c) Pricing--Section 205 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 
     1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ee) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
        ``(d) Single Farm Operations Generating More Than $500,000 
     in Gross Farm Income.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), 
     and (c), in the case of--
       ``(A) a qualified recipient that reports gross farm income 
     from a single farm operation in excess of $500,000 for a 
     taxable year; or
       ``(B) a limited recipient that received irrigation water on 
     or before October 1, 1981, and that reports gross farm income 
     from a single farm operation in excess of $500,000 for a 
     taxable year;

     irrigation water may be delivered to the single farm 
     operation of the qualified recipient or limited recipient at 
     less than full cost to a number of acres that does not exceed 
     the number of acres determined under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Maximum number of acres to which irrigation water may 
     be delivered at less than full cost.--The number of acres 
     determined under this subparagraph is the number equal to the 
     number of acres of the single farm operation multiplied by a 
     fraction, the numerator of which is $500,000 and the 
     denominator of which is the amount of gross farm income 
     reported by the qualified recipient or limited recipient in 
     the most recent taxable year.
       ``(3) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The $500,000 amount under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) for any taxable year beginning in a calendar year 
     after 2002 shall be equal to the product of--
       ``(i) $500,000, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the inflation adjustment factor for the taxable 
     year.
       ``(B) Inflation adjustment factor.--The term `inflation 
     adjustment factor' means, with respect to any calendar year, 
     a fraction the numerator of which is the GDP implicit price 
     deflator for the preceding calendar year and the denominator 
     of which is the GDP implicit price deflator for 2002. Not 
     later than April 1 of any calendar year, the Secretary shall 
     publish the inflation adjustment factor for the preceding 
     calendar year.
       ``(C) GDP implicit price deflator.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (B), the term `GDP implicit price deflator' 
     means the first revision of the implicit price deflator for 
     the gross domestic product as computed and published by the 
     Secretary of Commerce.
       ``(D) Rounding.--If any increase determined under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $100, the increase 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100.''.
       (d) Certification of Compliance.--Section 206 of the 
     Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ff) is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 206. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--As a condition to the receipt of 
     irrigation water for land in a district that has a contract 
     described in section 203, each owner, lessee, or operator in 
     the district shall furnish the district, in a form prescribed 
     by the Secretary, a certificate that the owner, lessee, or 
     operator is in compliance with this title, including a 
     statement of the number of acres owned, leased, or operated, 
     the terms of any lease or agreement pertaining to the 
     operation of a farm operation, and, in the case of a lessee 
     or operator, a certification that the rent or other fees paid 
     reflect the reasonable value of the irrigation water to the 
     productivity of the land.
       ``(b) Documentation.--The Secretary may require a lessee or 
     operator to submit for the Secretary's examination--
       ``(1) a complete copy of any lease or other agreement 
     executed by each of the parties to the lease or other 
     agreement; and
       ``(2) a copy of the return of income tax imposed by chapter 
     1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year 
     in which the single farm operation of the lessee or operator 
     received irrigation water at less than full cost.''.
       (e) Trusts.--Section 214 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 
     1982 (43 U.S.C. 390nn) is repealed.
       (f) Administrative Provisions.--
       (1) Penalties.--Section 224(c) of the Reclamation Reform 
     Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ww(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(c) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Regulations; Data Collection; Penalties.--
       ``(1) Regulations; data collection.--The Secretary''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Penalties.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall establish appropriate and effective 
     penalties for failure to comply with any provision of this 
     Act or any regulations issued under this Act.''.
       (2) Interest.--Section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform Act 
     of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)) is amended by striking the last 
     sentence and inserting the following: ``The interest rate 
     applicable to underpayments shall be equal to the rate 
     applicable to expenditures under section 202(3)(C).''.
       (g) Reporting.--Section 228 of the Reclamation Reform Act 
     of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390zz) is amended by inserting ``operator 
     or'' before ``contracting entity'' each place it appears.
       (h) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Reclamation Reform 
     Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.) is amended--

[[Page 134]]

       (1) by redesignating sections 229 and 220 as sections 230 
     and 231; and
       (2) by inserting after section 228 the following:

     ``SEC. 229. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

       ``The Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into a memorandum of 
     understanding or other appropriate instrument to permit the 
     Secretary, notwithstanding section 6103 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1996, to have access to and use of available 
     information collected or maintained by the Department of the 
     Treasury and the Department of Agriculture that would aid 
     enforcement of the ownership and pricing limitations of 
     Federal reclamation law.''.

     TITLE II--TERMINATION OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF 
                   THE HEALTH SCIENCES. SECTION 201. TERMINATION.

       (a) In General.--The Uniformed Services University of the 
     Health Sciences is terminated.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter 104 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (2) The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of 
     such title, and at the beginning of part III of such 
     subtitle, are each amended by striking out the item relating 
     to chapter 104.
       (C) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Termination.--The termination of the Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences under subsection (a)(1) 
     shall take effect on the day after the date of the graduation 
     from the university of the last class of students that 
     enrolled in such university on or before the date of the 
     enactment of the Act.
       (2) Amendments.--The amendments made by subsection (a)(2) 
     shall take effect on that date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that the provisions of chapter 104 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as in effect on the day before such date, shall 
     continue to apply with respect to the Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences until the termination of 
     the university under this section.

     TITLE III--TERMINATION OF PRODUCTION UNDER THE D5 SUBMARINE 
                   LAUNCHED MISSILE PROGRAM.

     SECTION 301. PRODUCTION TERMINATION.

       (a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     terminate production of D5 submarine-launched ballistic 
     missile program.
       (b) Payment of Termination Costs.--Funds available on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act for obligation 
     for the D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile program may 
     be obligated for production under that program only for 
     payment of the costs associated with the termination of 
     production under this Act.

     SEC. 302. CURRENT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.

       Nothing in this legislation shall be construed to prohibit 
     or otherwise affect the availability of funds for the 
     following:
       (1) Production of D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles 
     in production on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Maintenance after the date of the enactment of this act 
     of the arsenal of D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles in 
     existence on such date, including the missiles described in 
     paragraph (1).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 52. A bill to permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, predictions that the Internet Tax Freedom 
Act would topple Western Civilization have not come to pass. Since the 
moratorium on taxation of out-of-State, online sales was first enacted 
in October 1998, not a single community, county or state has come 
forward to prove it is being injured by its inability to impose 
discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. There is simply no 
evidence that States have lost revenue by technology-driven commerce. 
On the contrary, the technology sector itself has been pounded as hard 
as any sector by the economic downturn.
  Across the country States are facing tremendous budget pressures. My 
own State of Oregon is facing a nearly 20 percent budget shortfall, and 
Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in the Nation. The shift from 
black ink to red is the result of this Administration's failed economic 
policies, not the inability of States to impose discriminatory taxes on 
Internet sales.
  Adding new taxes on the backs of consumers is not the way to salvage 
weakened State and local economies. Sales taxes are among the most 
regressive revenue measures, and imposing new sales taxes at this time 
could actually make a bad economic situation worse. A number of States 
seem to be arguing that their economic future is tied to taxing 
technology entrepreneurs located thousands of miles away with no 
physical presence in their jurisdiction. I don't share this view. The 
reason States don't tax remote sellers, as former Massachusetts 
Governor Celluci has testified before the Senate, is they don't want 
the political heat. Few of the 45 States that could collect a use tax 
on all items their residents have purchased out-of-State actually do 
so. Most States simply chose not to enforce their own laws, preferring 
to export their tax burden to out of state businesses who get no 
benefit from the taxing state.
  Congress will soon be asked again by the Streamlined Sales Tax 
Project States to take the political heat for new sales taxes. The U.S. 
Senate has voted three times in recent years on whether to overturn 
Quill to require remote sellers with no nexus to serve the States as 
their tax collectors. Every time the Senate has rejected the notion. On 
January 19, 1995, the Senate voted 73-25 to table the amendment; on 
October 2, 1998, the Senate voted 66-29 to table the amendment; and 
most recently, on November 15, 2001, the Senate voted 57-43 to table 
the amendment.
  As Congress revisits this issue again this year, we should remember 
what the Supreme Court said in Quill: ``Congress is . . . free to 
decide whether, when and to what extent the States may burden mail-
order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.'' The authority the 
Constitution vests in Congress to regulate interstate commerce--online 
or otherwise--is an enormous power that must be exercised with great 
care and caution. I believe the moratorium should be extended 
indefinitely, and that is what the legislation I introduce today would 
do. I am pleased to be joined once again in this effort by 
Representative Chris Cox, and 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. 52

       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 ``Internet Tax 
     Nondiscrimination Act''.

     SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT 
                   MORATORIUM.

       (a) Permanent Extension; Internet Access Taxes.--Section 
     1101 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``taxes during the period beginning on 
     October 1, 1998, and ending on November 1, 2003--'' and 
     inserting ``taxes after September 30, 1998:'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (a) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Taxes on Internet access.'';
       (3) by striking ``multiple'' in paragraph (2) of subsection 
     (a) and inserting ``Multiple'';
       (4) by striking subsection (d); and
       (5) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1104(10) of the Internet 
     Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking 
     ``unless'' and all that follows through ``1998''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Edwards, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Miller, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Kohl, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reed, Mr. Pryor, 
        Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 54. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the test 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. 54

       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 ``Greater Access to Affordable 
     Pharmaceuticals Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

[[Page 135]]

       (1) prescription drug costs are increasing at an alarming 
     rate and are a major worry of American families and senior 
     citizens;
       (2) enhancing competition between generic drug 
     manufacturers and brand-name manufacturers can significantly 
     reduce prescription drug costs for American families;
       (3) the pharmaceutical market has become increasingly 
     competitive during the last decade because of the increasing 
     availability and accessibility of generic pharmaceuticals, 
     but competition must be further stimulated and strengthened;
       (4) the Federal Trade Commission has discovered that there 
     are increasing opportunities for drug companies owning 
     patents on brand-name drugs and generic drug companies to 
     enter into private financial deals in a manner that could 
     restrain trade and greatly reduce competition and increase 
     prescription drug costs for consumers;
       (5) generic pharmaceuticals are approved by the Food and 
     Drug Administration on the basis of scientific testing and 
     other information establishing that pharmaceuticals are 
     therapeutically equivalent to brand-name pharmaceuticals, 
     ensuring consumers a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective 
     alternative to brand-name innovator pharmaceuticals;
       (6) the Congressional Budget Office estimates that--
       (A) the use of generic pharmaceuticals for brand-name 
     pharmaceuticals could save purchasers of pharmaceuticals 
     between $8,000,000,000 and $10,000,000,000 each year; and
       (B) generic pharmaceuticals cost between 25 percent and 60 
     percent less than brand-name pharmaceuticals, resulting in an 
     estimated average savings of $15 to $30 on each prescription;
       (7) generic pharmaceuticals are widely accepted by 
     consumers and the medical profession, as the market share 
     held by generic pharmaceuticals compared to brand-name 
     pharmaceuticals has more than doubled during the last decade, 
     from approximately 19 percent to 43 percent, according to the 
     Congressional Budget Office;
       (8) expanding access to generic pharmaceuticals can help 
     consumers, especially senior citizens and the uninsured, have 
     access to more affordable prescription drugs;
       (9) Congress should ensure that measures are taken to 
     effectuate the amendments made by the Drug Price Competition 
     and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 1585) 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Hatch-Waxman Act'') to 
     make generic drugs more accessible, and thus reduce health 
     care costs; and
       (10) it would be in the public interest if patents on drugs 
     for which applications are approved under section 505(c) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(c)) 
     were extended only through the patent extension procedure 
     provided under the Hatch-Waxman Act rather than through the 
     attachment of riders to bills in Congress.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to increase competition, thereby helping all Americans, 
     especially seniors and the uninsured, to have access to more 
     affordable medication; and
       (2) to ensure fair marketplace practices and deter 
     pharmaceutical companies (including generic companies) from 
     engaging in anticompetitive action or actions that tend to 
     unfairly restrain trade.

     SEC. 3. FILING OF PATENT INFORMATION WITH THE FOOD AND DRUG 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Filing After Approval of an Application.--
       (1) In General.--Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) (as amended by section 
     9(a)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended in subsection (c) by striking 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Patent information.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than the date that is 30 days 
     after the date of an order approving an application under 
     subsection (b) (unless the Secretary extends the date because 
     of extraordinary or unusual circumstances), the holder of the 
     application shall file with the Secretary the patent 
     information described in subparagraph (C) with respect to any 
     patent--
       ``(i)(I) that claims the drug for which the application was 
     approved; or
       ``(II) that claims an approved method of using the drug; 
     and
       ``(ii) with respect to which a claim of patent infringement 
     could reasonably be asserted if a person not licensed by the 
     owner engaged in the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug.
       ``(B) Subsequently issued patents.--In a case in which a 
     patent described in subparagraph (A) is issued after the date 
     of an order approving an application under subsection (b), 
     the holder of the application shall file with the Secretary 
     the patent information described in subparagraph (C) not 
     later than the date that is 30 days after the date on which 
     the patent is issued (unless the Secretary extends the date 
     because of extraordinary or unusual circumstances).
       ``(C) Patent information.--The patent information required 
     to be filed under subparagraph (A) or (B) includes--
       ``(i) the patent number;
       ``(ii) the expiration date of the patent;
       ``(iii) with respect to each claim of the patent--

       ``(I) whether the patent claims the drug or claims a method 
     of using the drug; and
       ``(II) whether the claim covers--

       ``(aa) a drug substance;
       ``(bb) a drug formulation;
       ``(cc) a drug composition; or
       ``(dd) a method of use;
       ``(iv) if the patent claims a method of use, the approved 
     use covered by the claim;
       ``(v) the identity of the owner of the patent (including 
     the identity of any agent of the patent owner); and
       ``(vi) a declaration that the applicant, as of the date of 
     the filing, has provided complete and accurate patent 
     information for all patents described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Publication.--On filing of patent information 
     required under subparagraph (A) or (B), the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) immediately publish the information described in 
     clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) make the information described in clauses (v) and 
     (vi) of subparagraph (C) available to the public on request.
       ``(E) Civil action for correction or deletion of patent 
     information.--
       ``(i) In general.--A person that has filed an application 
     under subsection (b)(2) or (j) for a drug may bring a civil 
     action against the holder of the approved application for the 
     drug seeking an order requiring that the holder of the 
     application amend the application--

       ``(I) to correct patent information filed under 
     subparagraph (A); or
       ``(II) to delete the patent information in its entirety for 
     the reason that--

       ``(aa) the patent does not claim the drug for which the 
     application was approved; or
       ``(bb) the patent does not claim an approved method of 
     using the drug.
       ``(ii) Limitations.--Clause (i) does not authorize--

       ``(I) a civil action to correct patent information filed 
     under subparagraph (B); or
       ``(II) an award of damages in a civil action under clause 
     (i).

       ``(F) No claim for patent infringement.--An owner of a 
     patent with respect to which a holder of an application fails 
     to file information on or before the date required under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be barred from bringing a civil 
     action for infringement of the patent against a person that--
       ``(i) has filed an application under subsection (b)(2) or 
     (j); or
       ``(ii) manufactures, uses, offers to sell, or sells a drug 
     approved under an application under subsection (b)(2) or 
     (j).''.
       (2) Transition provision.--
       (A) Filing of patent information.--Each holder of an 
     application for approval of a new drug under section 505(b) 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355(b)) that has been approved before the date of enactment 
     of this Act shall amend the application to include the patent 
     information required under the amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act (unless the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services extends the date because of extraordinary or 
     unusual circumstances).
       (B) No claim for patent infringement.--An owner of a patent 
     with respect to which a holder of an application under 
     subsection (b) of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) fails to file information on or 
     before the date required under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     barred from bringing a civil action for infringement of the 
     patent against a person that--
       (i) has filed an application under subsection (b)(2) or (j) 
     of that section; or
       (ii) manufactures, uses, offers to sell, or sells a drug 
     approved under an application under subsection (b)(2) or (j) 
     of that section.
       (b) Filing With an Application.--Section 505 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) with respect to a patent that claims both the drug 
     and a method of using the drug or claims more than 1 method 
     of using the drug for which the application is filed--
       ``(i) a certification under subparagraph (A)(iv) on a 
     claim-by-claim basis; and
       ``(ii) a statement under subparagraph (B) regarding the 
     method of use claim.''; and
       (2) in subsection (j)(2)(A), by inserting after clause 
     (viii) the following:

     ``With respect to a patent that claims both the drug and a 
     method of using the drug or claims more than 1 method of 
     using the drug for which the application is filed, the 
     application shall contain a certification under clause 
     (vii)(IV) on a claim-by-claim basis and a statement under 
     clause (viii) regarding the method of use claim.''.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF 30-MONTH STAY TO CERTAIN PATENTS.

       (a) Abbreviated New Drug Applications.--Section 505(j)(5) 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355(j)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (iii)--
       (i) by striking ``(iii) If the applicant made a 
     certification described in subclause (IV) of paragraph 
     (2)(A)(vii),'' and inserting the following:

[[Page 136]]

       ``(iii) Subclause (iv) certification with respect to 
     certain patents.--If the applicant made a certification 
     described in paragraph (2)(A)(vii)(IV) with respect to a 
     patent (other than a patent that claims a process for 
     manufacturing the listed drug) for which patent information 
     was filed with the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(A),''; 
     and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The 30-month 
     period provided under the second sentence of this clause 
     shall not apply to a certification under paragraph 
     (2)(A)(vii)(IV) made with respect to a patent for which 
     patent information was filed with the Secretary under 
     subsection (c)(2)(B).'';
       (B) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and
       (C) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
       ``(iv) Subclause (iv) certification with respect to other 
     patents.--

       ``(I) In general.--If the applicant made a certification 
     described in paragraph (2)(A)(vii)(IV) with respect to a 
     patent not described in clause (iii) for which patent 
     information was published by the Secretary under subsection 
     (c)(2)(D), the approval shall be made effective on the date 
     that is 45 days after the date on which the notice provided 
     under paragraph (2)(B) was received, unless a civil action 
     for infringement of the patent, accompanied by a motion for 
     preliminary injunction to enjoin the applicant from engaging 
     in the commercial manufacture or sale of the drug, was filed 
     on or before the date that is 45 days after the date on which 
     the notice was received, in which case the approval shall be 
     made effective--

       ``(aa) on the date of a court action declining to grant a 
     preliminary injunction; or
       ``(bb) if the court has granted a preliminary injunction 
     prohibiting the applicant from engaging in the commercial 
     manufacture or sale of the drug--
         ``(AA) on issuance by a court of a determination that the 
     patent is invalid or is not infringed;
         ``(BB) on issuance by a court of an order revoking the 
     preliminary injunction or permitting the applicant to engage 
     in the commercial manufacture or sale of the drug; or
         ``(CC) on the date specified in a court order under 
     section 271(e)(4)(A) of title 35, United States Code, if the 
     court determines that the patent is infringed.

       ``(II) Cooperation.--Each of the parties shall reasonably 
     cooperate in expediting a civil action under subclause (I).
       ``(III) Expedited notification.--If the notice under 
     paragraph (2)(B) contains an address for the receipt of 
     expedited notification of a civil action under subclause (I), 
     the plaintiff shall, on the date on which the complaint is 
     filed, simultaneously cause a notification of the civil 
     action to be delivered to that address by the next business 
     day.''; and

       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) Failure to bring infringement action.--If, in 
     connection with an application under this subsection, the 
     applicant provides an owner of a patent notice under 
     paragraph (2)(B) with respect to the patent, and the owner of 
     the patent fails to bring a civil action against the 
     applicant for infringement of the patent on or before the 
     date that is 45 days after the date on which the notice is 
     received, the owner of the patent shall be barred from 
     bringing a civil action for infringement of the patent in 
     connection with the development, manufacture, use, offer to 
     sell, or sale of the drug for which the application was filed 
     or approved under this subsection.''.
       (b) Other Applications.--Section 505(c)) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(c)) (as amended 
     by section 9(a)(3)(A)(iii)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by striking ``(C) If the applicant made a certification 
     described in clause (iv) of subsection (b)(2)(A),'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) Clause (iv) certification with respect to certain 
     patents.--If the applicant made a certification described in 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) with respect to a patent (other than 
     a patent that claims a process for manufacturing the listed 
     drug) for which patent information was filed with the 
     Secretary under paragraph (2)(A),''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The 30-month 
     period provided under the second sentence of this 
     subparagraph shall not apply to a certification under 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) made with respect to a patent for 
     which patent information was filed with the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2)(B).''; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) Clause (iv) certification with respect to other 
     patents.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the applicant made a certification 
     described in subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) with respect to a 
     patent not described in subparagraph (C) for which patent 
     information was published by the Secretary under paragraph 
     (2)(D), the approval shall be made effective on the date that 
     is 45 days after the date on which the notice provided under 
     subsection (b)(3) was received, unless a civil action for 
     infringement of the patent, accompanied by a motion for 
     preliminary injunction to enjoin the applicant from engaging 
     in the commercial manufacture or sale of the drug, was filed 
     on or before the date that is 45 days after the date on which 
     the notice was received, in which case the approval shall be 
     made effective--

       ``(I) on the date of a court action declining to grant a 
     preliminary injunction; or
       ``(II) if the court has granted a preliminary injunction 
     prohibiting the applicant from engaging in the commercial 
     manufacture or sale of the drug--

       ``(aa) on issuance by a court of a determination that the 
     patent is invalid or is not infringed;
       ``(bb) on issuance by a court of an order revoking the 
     preliminary injunction or permitting the applicant to engage 
     in the commercial manufacture or sale of the drug; or
       ``(cc) on the date specified in a court order under section 
     271(e)(4)(A) of title 35, United States Code, if the court 
     determines that the patent is infringed.
       ``(ii) Cooperation.--Each of the parties shall reasonably 
     cooperate in expediting a civil action under clause (i).
       ``(iii) Expedited notification.--If the notice under 
     subsection (b)(3) contains an address for the receipt of 
     expedited notification of a civil action under clause (i), 
     the plaintiff shall, on the date on which the complaint is 
     filed, simultaneously cause a notification of the civil 
     action to be delivered to that address by the next business 
     day.''; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Failure to bring infringement action.--If, in 
     connection with an application under subsection (b)(2), the 
     applicant provides an owner of a patent notice under 
     subsection (b)(3) with respect to the patent, and the owner 
     of the patent fails to bring a civil action against the 
     applicant for infringement of the patent on or before the 
     date that is 45 days after the date on which the notice is 
     received, the owner of the patent shall be barred from 
     bringing a civil action for infringement of the patent in 
     connection with the development, manufacture, use, offer to 
     sell, or sale of the drug for which the application was filed 
     or approved under subsection (b)(2).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall be effective with respect to any certification 
     under subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) or (j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of 
     section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 355) made after the date of enactment of this Act in 
     an application filed under subsection (b)(2) or (j) of that 
     section.
       (2) Transition provision.--In the case of applications 
     under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)) filed before the date of enactment of 
     this Act--
       (A) a patent (other than a patent that claims a process for 
     manufacturing a listed drug) for which information was 
     submitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 
     section 505(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     Act) shall be subject to subsections (c)(3)(C) and 
     (j)(5)(B)(iii) of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (as amended by this section); and
       (B) any other patent (including a patent for which 
     information was submitted to the Secretary under section 
     505(c)(2) of that Act (as in effect on the day before the 
     date of enactment of this Act)) shall be subject to 
     subsections (c)(3)(D) and (j)(5)(B)(iv) of section 505 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as amended by this 
     section).

     SEC. 5. EXCLUSIVITY FOR ACCELERATED GENERIC DRUG APPLICANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 505(j)(5) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)) (as amended by 
     section 4(a)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(v), by striking subclause (II) and 
     inserting the following:

       ``(II) the earlier of--

       ``(aa) the date of a final decision of a court (from which 
     no appeal has been or can be taken, other than a petition to 
     the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari) holding that the 
     patent that is the subject of the certification is invalid or 
     not infringed; or
       ``(bb) the date of a settlement order or consent decree 
     signed by a Federal judge that enters a final judgment and 
     includes a finding that the patent that is the subject of the 
     certification is invalid or not infringed;''; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) Forfeiture of 180-day period.--
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this subparagraph:

       ``(I) Application.--The term `application' means an 
     application for approval of a drug under this subsection 
     containing a certification under paragraph (2)(A)(vii)(IV) 
     with respect to a patent.
       ``(II) First application.--The term `first application' 
     means the first application to be filed for approval of the 
     drug.
       ``(III) Forfeiture event.--The term `forfeiture event', 
     with respect to an application under this subsection, means 
     the occurrence of any of the following:

       ``(aa) Failure to market.--The applicant fails to market 
     the drug by the later of--
         ``(AA) the date that is 60 days after the date on which 
     the approval of the application for the drug is made 
     effective under clause (iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (B) 
     (unless

[[Page 137]]

     the Secretary extends the date because of extraordinary or 
     unusual circumstances); or
         ``(BB) if 1 or more civil actions have been brought 
     against the applicant for infringement of a patent subject to 
     a certification under paragraph (2)(A)(vii)(IV) or 1 or more 
     civil actions have been brought by the applicant for a 
     declaratory judgment that such a patent is invalid or not 
     infringed, the date that is 60 days after the date of a final 
     decision (from which no appeal has been or can be taken, 
     other than a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of 
     certiorari) in the last of those civil actions to be decided 
     (unless the Secretary extends the date because of 
     extraordinary or unusual circumstances).
       ``(bb) Withdrawal of application.--The applicant withdraws 
     the application.
       ``(cc) Amendment of certification.--The applicant, 
     voluntarily or as a result of a settlement or defeat in 
     patent litigation, amends the certification from a 
     certification under paragraph (2)(A)(vii)(IV) to a 
     certification under paragraph (2)(A)(vii)(III).
       ``(dd) Failure to obtain approval.--The applicant fails to 
     obtain tentative approval of an application within 30 months 
     after the date on which the application is filed, unless the 
     failure is caused by--
         ``(AA) a change in the requirements for approval of the 
     application imposed after the date on which the application 
     is filed; or
         ``(BB) other extraordinary circumstances warranting an 
     exception, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(ee) Failure to challenge patent.--In a case in which, 
     after the date on which the applicant submitted the 
     application, new patent information is submitted under 
     subsection (c)(2) for the listed drug for a patent for which 
     certification is required under paragraph (2)(A), the 
     applicant fails to submit, not later than the date that is 60 
     days after the date on which the Secretary publishes the new 
     patent information under paragraph (7)(A)(iii) (unless the 
     Secretary extends the date because of extraordinary or 
     unusual circumstances)--
         ``(AA) a certification described in paragraph 
     (2)(A)(vii)(IV) with respect to the patent to which the new 
     patent information relates; or
         ``(BB) a statement that any method of use claim of that 
     patent does not claim a use for which the applicant is 
     seeking approval under this subsection in accordance with 
     paragraph (2)(A)(viii).
       ``(ff) Unlawful conduct.--The Federal Trade Commission 
     determines that the applicant engaged in unlawful conduct 
     with respect to the application in violation of section 1 of 
     the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).

       ``(IV) Subsequent application.--The term `subsequent 
     application' means an application for approval of a drug that 
     is filed subsequent to the filing of a first application for 
     approval of that drug.

       ``(ii) Forfeiture of 180-day period.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), if 
     a forfeiture event occurs with respect to a first 
     application--

       ``(aa) the 180-day period under subparagraph (B)(v) shall 
     be forfeited by the first applicant; and
       ``(bb) any subsequent application shall become effective as 
     provided under clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of 
     subparagraph (B), and clause (v) of subparagraph (B) shall 
     not apply to the subsequent application.

       ``(II) Forfeiture to first subsequent applicant.--If the 
     subsequent application that is the first to be made effective 
     under subclause (I) was the first among a number of 
     subsequent applications to be filed--

       ``(aa) that first subsequent application shall be treated 
     as the first application under this subparagraph (including 
     subclause (I)) and as the previous application under 
     subparagraph (B)(v); and
       ``(bb) any other subsequent applications shall become 
     effective as provided under clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) 
     of subparagraph (B), but clause (v) of subparagraph (B) shall 
     apply to any such subsequent application.
       ``(iii) Availability.--The 180-day period under 
     subparagraph (B)(v) shall be available to a first applicant 
     submitting an application for a drug with respect to any 
     patent without regard to whether an application has been 
     submitted for the drug under this subsection containing such 
     a certification with respect to a different patent.
       ``(iv) Applicability.--The 180-day period described in 
     subparagraph (B)(v) shall apply to an application only if a 
     civil action is brought against the applicant for 
     infringement of a patent that is the subject of the 
     certification.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective only with respect to an application filed 
     under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) after the date of enactment of this 
     Act for a listed drug for which no certification under 
     section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of that Act was made before the 
     date of enactment of this Act, except that if a forfeiture 
     event described in section 505(j)(5)(D)(i)(III)(ff) of that 
     Act occurs in the case of an applicant, the applicant shall 
     forfeit the 180-day period under section 505(j)(5)(B)(v) of 
     that Act without regard to when the applicant made a 
     certification under section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of that 
     Act.

     SEC. 6. FAIR TREATMENT FOR INNOVATORS.

       (a) Basis for Application.--Section 505 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking the second 
     sentence and inserting ``The notice shall include a detailed 
     statement of the factual and legal basis of the applicant's 
     opinion that, as of the date of the notice, the patent is not 
     valid or is not infringed, and shall include, as appropriate 
     for the relevant patent, a description of the applicant's 
     proposed drug substance, drug formulation, drug composition, 
     or method of use. All information disclosed under this 
     subparagraph shall be treated as confidential and may be used 
     only for purposes relating to patent adjudication. Nothing in 
     this subparagraph precludes the applicant from amending the 
     factual or legal basis on which the applicant relies in 
     patent litigation.''; and
       (2) in subsection (j)(2)(B)(ii), by striking the second 
     sentence and inserting ``The notice shall include a detailed 
     statement of the factual and legal basis of the opinion of 
     the applicant that, as of the date of the notice, the patent 
     is not valid or is not infringed, and shall include, as 
     appropriate for the relevant patent, a description of the 
     applicant's proposed drug substance, drug formulation, drug 
     composition, or method of use. All information disclosed 
     under this subparagraph shall be treated as confidential and 
     may be used only for purposes relating to patent 
     adjudication. Nothing in this subparagraph precludes the 
     applicant from amending the factual or legal basis on which 
     the applicant relies in patent litigation.''.
       (b) Injunctive Relief.--Section 505(j)(5)(B) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)) (as 
     amended by section 4(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``A court shall not regard the extent of the ability of an 
     applicant to pay monetary damages as a whole or partial basis 
     on which to deny a preliminary or permanent injunction under 
     this clause.''; and
       (2) in clause (iv), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(IV) Injunctive relief.--A court shall not regard the 
     extent of the ability of an applicant to pay monetary damages 
     as a whole or partial basis on which to deny a preliminary or 
     permanent injunction under this clause.''.

     SEC. 7. BIOEQUIVALENCE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments to part 320 of title 21, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, promulgated by the Commissioner 
     of Food and Drugs on July 17, 1991 (57 Fed. Reg. 17997 (April 
     28, 1992)), shall continue in effect as an exercise of 
     authorities under sections 501, 502, 505, and 701 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 
     355, 371).
       (b) Effect.--Subsection (a) does not affect the authority 
     of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to amend part 320 of 
     title 21, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (c) Effect of Section.--This section shall not be construed 
     to alter the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to regulate biological products under the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). Any 
     such authority shall be exercised under that Act as in effect 
     on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 5 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade 
     Commission shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     extent to which implementation of the amendments made by this 
     Act--
       (1) has enabled products to come to market in a fair and 
     expeditious manner, consistent with the rights of patent 
     owners under intellectual property law; and
       (2) has promoted lower prices of drugs and greater access 
     to drugs through price competition.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

     SEC. 9. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 505.--Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) No person'' and 
     inserting ``(a) In General.--No person'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b)(1) Any person'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Applications.--
       ``(1) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any person'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the second sentence--

       (I) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as 
     clauses (i) through (vi), respectively, and adjusting the 
     margins appropriately;
       (II) by striking ``Such persons'' and inserting the 
     following:

       ``(B) Information to be submitted with application.--A 
     person that submits an application under subparagraph (A)''; 
     and

       (III) by striking ``application'' and inserting 
     ``application--'';

       (ii) by striking the third through fifth sentences; and
       (iii) in the sixth sentence--

       (I) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:

       ``(C) Guidance.--The Secretary''; and

[[Page 138]]

       (II) by striking ``clause (A)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (B)(i)''; and

       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``clause (A) of such paragraph'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)(B)(i)'';
       (ii) in subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking ``paragraph 
     (1) or''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(B)(i)''; and
       (II) by striking ``patent'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``claim''; and

       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``(A) If the applicant'' and inserting the 
     following:

       ``(A) Clause (i) or (ii) certification.--If the 
     applicant''; and

       (II) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall'';

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``(B) If the applicant'' and inserting the 
     following:

       ``(B) Clause (iii) certification.--If the applicant''; and

       (II) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall'';

       (iii) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph 
     (E); and
       (iv) in subparagraph (E) (as redesignated by clause (iii)), 
     by striking ``clause (A) of subsection (b)(1)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(B)(i)''; and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (4) in subsection (j)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (i) in clause (vi), by striking ``clauses (B) through 
     ((F)'' and inserting ``subclauses (ii) through (vi) of 
     subsection (b)(1)'';
       (ii) in clause (vii), by striking ``(b) or''; and
       (iii) in clause (viii)--

       (I) by striking ``(b) or''; and
       (II) by striking ``patent'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``claim''; and

       (B) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) in clause (i)--

       (aa) by striking ``(i) If the applicant'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) Subclause (i) or (ii) certification.--If the 
     applicant''; and
       (bb) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall'';

       (II) in clause (ii)--

       (aa) by striking ``(ii) If the applicant'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(i) Subclause (iii) certification.--If the applicant''; 
     and
       (bb) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall'';

       (III) in clause (iii), by striking ``(2)(B)(i)'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``(2)(B)''; and
       (IV) in clause (v) (as redesignated by section 4(a)(1)(B)), 
     by striking ``continuing'' and inserting ``containing''; and

       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively.
       (b) Section 505A.--Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended--
       (1) in subsections (b)(1)(A)(i) and (c)(1)(A)(i)--
       (A) by striking ``(c)(3)(D)(ii)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(c)(3)(E)(ii)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(j)(5)(D)(ii)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(j)(5)(F)(ii)'';
       (2) in subsections (b)(1)(A)(ii) and (c)(1)(A)(ii)--
       (A) by striking ``(c)(3)(D)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(c)(3)(E)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(j)(5)(D)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(j)(5)(F)'';
       (3) in subsections (e) and (l)--
       (A) by striking ``505(c)(3)(D)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``505(c)(3)(E)''; and
       (B) by striking ``505(j)(5)(D)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``505(j)(5)(F)''; and
       (4) in subsection (k), by striking ``505(j)(5)(B)(iv)'' and 
     inserting ``505(j)(5)(B)(v)''.
       (c) Section 527.--Section 527(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360cc(a)) is amended in the 
     second sentence by striking ``505(c)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``505(c)(1)(B)''.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from 
New York and Arizona in introducing the Greater Access to Affordable 
Pharmaceuticals Act, which will make prescription drugs more affordable 
by promoting completion in the pharmaceutical industry and increasing 
access to lower-priced generic drugs. The bipartisan bill that we are 
introducing today is identical to the compromise legislation that 
overwhelmingly passed the Senate last July by a vote of 78 to 21. That 
compromise was based on an amendment I Offered in the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with my colleague form North 
Carolina, Senator Edwards.
  Prescription drug spending in the United States has increased by 92 
percent over the past 5 years to almost $120 million. These soaring 
costs are a particular burden for the millions of uninsured Americans, 
as well as those seniors on Medicare who lack prescription drug 
coverage. Many of these individuals are simply priced out of the 
market, or forced to choose between paying the bills or buying the 
pills that keep them healthy.
  Skyrocketing prescription drug costs are also putting the squeeze on 
our Nation's employers who are struggling in the face of double-digit 
annual premium increases to provide health care coverage for their 
workers. And they are exacerbating the Medicaid funding crisis that all 
of us are hearing about from our Governors back home as they struggle 
to bridge growing shortfalls in their State budgets.
  The legislation that we are introducing today will make prescription 
drugs more affordable for all Americans. The nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that are bill will cut our Nation's drug costs 
by $60 billion over the next 10 years. That is why the legislation is 
supported by coalitions representing the Governors, insurers, 
businesses, organized labor, senior groups, and individual consumers 
who are footing the bill for these expensive drugs and whose costs for 
popular drugs like Cardizem CD, Cipro, Prilosec, and Zantac could be 
cut in half if generic alternatives were available.
  The 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act made significant changes in our patent laws 
that were intended to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make the 
investments necessary to develop new drug products, while 
simultaneously enabling their competitors to bring lower-cost, generic 
alternatives to the market. To that end, the legislation has succeeded 
to a large degree. Prior to Hatch-Waxman, it took 3 to 5 years for 
generics to enter the market after a brand-name patent had expired. 
Today, lower-cost generics often enter the market immediately upon the 
expiration of the patent. As a consequence, consumers are saving 
anywhere from $8 to 10 billion a year by purchasing generic drugs.
  Moreover, there are even greater potential savings on the horizon. 
Within the next 4 years, the patents on brand name drugs with combined 
sales of $20 billion are set to expire. If Hatch-Waxman were to work as 
it was intended, consumers could expect to save between 50 and 60 
percent on these drugs as lower cost generic alternatives become 
available as these patents expire.
  Despite its past success, however,it is becoming increasingly 
apparent that the Hatch-Waxman Act has been subject to abuse. While 
many pharmaceutical companies have acted in good faith, there is 
mounting evidence that some brand name generic drug manufacturers have 
attempted to ``game'' the system by exploiting legal loopholes in the 
current law.
  Too many pharmaceutical companies have maximized their profits at the 
expense of consumers by filing frivolous patents that have delayed 
access to lower priced generic drugs. Currently, brand-name companies 
can delay a generic drug from going to market for years. A ``new'' 
patent for an existing drug can be awarded for merely changing the 
color of a pill or its packaging. For example, Bristol Myers-Squibb 
delayed generic competition on Platinol, a cancer treatment, by filing 
a patent on the brown bottle that it came in.
  Another example cited by the Chairman of the Federal Trade 
Commission, Timothy Muris, in testimony before the Senate Commerce 
Commission, involved the producer of the heart medication Cardizem CD, 
which brought a lawsuit for patent and trademark infringement against 
the generic manufacturer in early 1996. Instead of asking the generic 
company to pay damages, however, the brand name manufacturer offered a 
settlement to pay the generic company more than $80 million in return 
for keeping the generic drug off the market. Meanwhile, users of 
Cardizem--which treats high blood pressure, chest pains and heart 
disease--were paying about $73 a month when the generic would have cost 
about $32 a month.
  Last July, the Federal Trade Commission released a long-awaited 
report that found that brand-name drug manufacturers have misused legal 
loopholes to delay the entry of lower-cost generics into the market. 
The FTC

[[Page 139]]

found that these tactics have led to delays of between four and 40 
months-- over and above the first 30-month stay provided under Hatch-
Waxman--for generic competitors of at least eight drugs since 1992. 
Moreover, six of the eight delays have occurred since 1998.
  The FTC report points to two specific provisions of the Hatch-Waxman 
Act--the automatic 30-month stay and the 180-day market exclusivity for 
the first generic to file a patent challenge--as being susceptible to 
strategies that could delay the entry of lower-cost generics into the 
market. According to the report, these loopholes ``continue to have the 
potential for abuse,'' and, if left unchanged, ``may have more 
significance in the future.'' These are the very loopholes that the 
legislation we are introducing today would close.
  The original Hatch-Waxman Act was a carefully constructed compromise 
that balanced an expedited FDA approval process to speed the entry of 
lower-cost generic drugs into the market with additional patent 
protections to ensure continuing innovation. The bipartisan bill that 
we are introducing today restores that balance by closing the loopholes 
that have reduced the original law's effectiveness in bringing lower-
cost generic drugs to market more quickly, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 57. A bill for the relief of Donald C. Pence; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief 
bill on behalf of Donald C. Pence of Stanford, NC, for compensation for 
the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay dependency and 
indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now-deceased mother of 
Donald C. Pence. It is rare that a Federal agency admits a mistake. In 
this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs has admitted that a 
mistake was made and explored ways to permit payment under the law, 
including equitable relief, but has found no provisions authorizing the 
Department to release the remaining benefits that were unpaid to Mrs. 
Box at the time of her death. My bill would correct this injustice, and 
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 57

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

     SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DONALD C. PENCE.

       (a) Relief.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out 
     of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
     Donald C. Pence, of Sanford, North Carolina, the sum of 
     $31,128 in compensation for the failure of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to pay dependency and indemnity compensation 
     to Kathryn E. Box, the now-deceased mother of Donald C. 
     Pence, for the period beginning on July 1, 1990, and ending 
     on March 31, 1993.
       (b) Limitation on Fees.--Not more than a total of 10 
     percent of the payment authorized by subsection (a) shall be 
     paid to or received by agents or attorneys for services 
     rendered in connection with obtaining such payment, any 
     contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person who 
     violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 58. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax relief for the conversion of cooperative housing corporations into 
condominiums; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
Cooperative Housing Corporations, co-ops, to convert to condominium 
forms of ownership.
  Under current law, a conversion from a cooperative shareholding to 
condominium ownership is taxable at a corporate level as well as an 
individual level. The conversion is treated as a corporate liquidation, 
and therefore taxed accordingly. In addition, a capital gains tax is 
levied on any increase between the owner's basis in the co-op share 
pre-conversion and the market value of the condominium interest post-
conversion. This double taxation dissuades condominium conversion 
because the owner is being taxed on the transaction which is nothing 
more than a change in the form of ownership. While the Internal Revenue 
Service concedes that there are no discernable advantages to society of 
the cooperative form of ownership, they do not view Federal tax 
statutes as providing sufficient flexibility with which to address the 
obstacles of conversion.
  Cooperative housing organizes the ownership structure into a 
corporation, with shares of stock for each apartment unit, which are 
sold to buyers. The corporation then issues a proprietary lease 
entitling the owner of the stock to the use of the unit in perpetuity. 
Because the investment is in the form of a share of stock, investors 
sometimes lose their entire investment as a result of debt incurred by 
the corporation in construction and development. In addition, due to 
the structure of a cooperative housing corporation, a prospective 
purchaser of shares in the corporation from an existing tenant-
stockholder has difficulty obtaining mortgage financing for the 
purchase. Furthermore, tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing also 
encounter difficulties in securing bank loans for the full value of 
their investment.
  As a result, owners of cooperative housing are increasingly looking 
toward conversion to the condominium structure of ownership. 
Condominium ownership permits the owner of a unit to own the unit 
itself, eliminating the cooperative housing dilemma of corporate debt 
that supersedes the investment of cooperative housing share owners, and 
other financial concerns.
  The legislation I introduce today will remove the penalty of double 
taxation from the conversion of cooperative housing to condominium 
ownership, and will greatly benefit co-op owners across the nation. The 
bill does not apply to cooperatives which have been or are now being 
financed by any Federal, State, or local programs for the purpose of 
assisting in the construction of affordable housing cooperatives or the 
conversion of rental units to affordable housing cooperatives. I urge 
my colleagues' consideration of and support for this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 58

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

     SECTION 1. NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS ON DISTRIBUTIONS BY 
                   COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 216(e) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to distributions by cooperative 
     housing corporations) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Distributions by Cooperative Housing Corporations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in regulations--
       ``(A) no gain or loss shall be recognized to a cooperative 
     housing corporation on the distribution by such corporation 
     of a dwelling unit to a stockholder in such corporation if 
     such distribution is in exchange for the stockholder's stock 
     in such corporation, and
       ``(B) no gain or loss shall be recognized to a stockholder 
     of such corporation on the transfer of such stockholder's 
     stock in an exchange described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Basis.--The basis of a dwelling unit acquired in a 
     distribution to which paragraph (1) applies shall be the same 
     as the basis of the stock in the cooperative housing 
     corporation for which it is exchanged, decreased in the 
     amount of any money received by the taxpayer in such 
     exchange.
       (3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply with 
     respect to any dwelling unit the basis of which includes 
     financing under any Federal, State, or local program for the 
     purpose of assisting the construction of affordable housing 
     cooperatives or the conversion of rental units to affordable 
     housing cooperatives.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 59. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former 
members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability 
rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to 
the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to 
travel on such aircraft; to the Committee on Armed Services.

[[Page 140]]


  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is 
of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation 
is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military 
aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our 
country.
  Currently, retired members of the Armed Forces are permitted to 
travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights 
within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights 
operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the 
same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected 
disabilities.
  We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our 
country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the 
sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely 
try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which 
we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these 
distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from 
all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue 
by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and 
join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 59

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

     SECTION 1. TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF CERTAIN DISABLED 
                   FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after section 1060a the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 1060b. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled 
       former members of the armed forces

       ``The Secretary of Defense shall permit any former member 
     of the armed forces who is entitled to compensation under the 
     laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a 
     service-connected disability rated as total to travel, in the 
     same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the 
     armed forces, on unscheduled military flights within the 
     continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights 
     operated by the Military Airlift Command. The Secretary of 
     Defense shall permit such travel on a space-available 
     basis.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 1060a the following new item:

``1060b. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former members 
              of the armed forces.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 60. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
certain disabled former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense 
commissary and exchange stores; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to 
enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably 
from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 
percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the 
military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is 
impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of 
incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this 
gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it 
serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their 
sacrifices.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 60

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

     SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES BY CERTAIN 
                   DISABLED FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 54 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1064 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores by 
       certain disabled former prisoners of war

       ``(a) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Defense, former prisoners of war described in 
     subsection (b) may use commissary and exchange stores.
       ``(b) Covered Individuals.--Subsection (a) applies to any 
     former prisoner of war who--
       ``(1) separated from active duty in the armed forces under 
     honorable conditions; and
       ``(2) has a service-connected disability rated by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs at 30 percent or more.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `former prisoner of war' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 101(32) of title 38.
       ``(2) The term `service-connected' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 101(16) of title 38.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1064 the following new item:

``1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores by certain disabled 
              former prisoners of war.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 61. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
revise and extend certain programs relating to the education of 
individuals as health professionals, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Physical and 
Occupational Therapy Education Act of 2003. This legislation will 
increase educational opportunities for physical therapy and 
occupational therapy practitioners in order to meet the growing demand 
for the valuable services they provide in our communities.
  Several factors contribute to the present need for federal support in 
this area. The rapid aging of our Nation's population, the demands of 
the AIDS crisis, increasing emphasis on health promotion and disease 
prevention, and the growth of home health care has increased the demand 
for physical and occupational therapy services. This demand has 
exceeded our ability to educate an adequate number of physical 
therapists and occupational therapists. In addition, technological 
advances are allowing injured and disabled individuals to survive 
conditions that would have proven fatal in past years.
  An inadequate number of physical therapists has led to an increased 
reliance on foreign-educated, non-immigrant temporary workers who enter 
the U.S. as H-1B visa holders. The U.S. Commission on Immigration 
Reform has identified physical therapy and occupational therapy as 
having the highest number of H-1B visa holders in the United States, 
second only to computer specialists.
  In addition to the shortage of practitioners, a shortage of faculty 
impedes the expansion of established education programs. The critical 
shortage of doctoral-prepared occupational therapists and physical 
therapists has resulted in a depleted pool of potential faculty. This 
bill would assist in the development of qualified faculty by giving 
preference to grant applicants seeking to develop and expand post-
professional programs for the advanced training of physical and 
occupational therapists.
  The legislation I introduce today would provide necessary assistance 
to physical and occupational therapy programs throughout the country. 
The investment we make will help reduce America's dependence on foreign 
labor and create highly-skilled, high-wage employment opportunities for 
American citizens.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 61

       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 ``Physical Therapy and 
     Occupational Therapy Education Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

       Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 769, the following:

[[Page 141]]



     ``SEC. 769A. PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts with, programs of physical therapy and 
     occupational therapy for the purpose of planning and 
     implementing projects to recruit and retain faculty and 
     students, develop curriculum, support the distribution of 
     physical therapy and occupational therapy practitioners in 
     underserved areas, or support the continuing development of 
     these professions.
       ``(b) Preference in Making Grants.--In making grants under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to 
     qualified applicants that seek to educate physical therapists 
     or occupational therapists in rural or urban medically 
     underserved communities, or to expand post-professional 
     programs for the advanced education of physical therapy or 
     occupational therapy practitioners.
       ``(c) Peer Review.--Each peer review group under section 
     799(f) that is reviewing proposals for grants or contracts 
     under subsection (a) shall include not fewer than 2 physical 
     therapists or occupational therapists.
       ``(d) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare a report 
     that--
       ``(A) summarizes the applications submitted to the 
     Secretary for grants or contracts under subsection (a);
       ``(B) specifies the identity of entities receiving the 
     grants or contracts; and
       ``(C) evaluates the effectiveness of the program based upon 
     the objectives established by the entities receiving the 
     grants or contracts.
       ``(2) Date certain for submission.--Not later than February 
     1, 2004, the Secretary shall submit the report prepared under 
     paragraph (1) to the Committee on Commerce and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 
     through 2006.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 62. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
remove the restriction that a clinical psychologist or clinical social 
worker provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation 
facility to a patient only under the care of a physician; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize 
the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and clinical 
social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facility program.
  In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical 
supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals 
and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their State 
practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient 
rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social 
and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical 
social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health 
care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the 
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, the 
Medicare, Part B, Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This 
legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the 
same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facility program.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 62

       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 ``Autonomy for Psychologists 
     and Social Workers Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST 
                   OR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER PROVIDE SERVICES IN A 
                   COMPREHENSIVE OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION 
                   FACILITY TO A PATIENT ONLY UNDER THE CARE OF A 
                   PHYSICIAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended by 
     striking ``physician'' and inserting ``physician, except that 
     a patient receiving qualified psychologist services (as 
     defined in subsection (ii)) may be under the care of a 
     clinical psychologist with respect to such services to the 
     extent permitted under State law and except that a patient 
     receiving clinical social worker services (as defined in 
     subsection (hh)(2)) may be under the care of a clinical 
     social worker with respect to such services to the extent 
     permitted under State law''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 63. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of services provided by nursing school clinics 
under State Medicaid programs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School 
Clinics Act of 2003. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to 
provide access to quality health care for all Americans by offering 
grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care 
clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most 
needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing 
schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by 
providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.
  Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university 
or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration 
with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. 
These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse 
practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient 
care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing 
faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic 
institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To 
date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have 
yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room 
visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as 
compared to conventional primary health care.
  This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery 
in underserved areas with the education of advanced practices nurses. 
To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act 
would be amended to designate that the services provided in these 
nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination 
of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the 
financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective 
and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range 
of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach 
the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring 
that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an 
integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act 
of 2003 recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers 
to the medically underserved.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 63

       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 ``Nursing School Clinics Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY NURSING 
                   SCHOOL CLINICS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (26), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (27) as paragraph (28); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (26), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(27) nursing school clinic services (as defined in 
     subsection (x)) furnished by or under the supervision of a 
     nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist (as defined 
     in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether or not the nurse 
     practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is under the 
     supervision of, or associated with, a physician or other 
     health care provider; and''.
       (b) Nursing School Clinic Services Defined.--Section 1905 
     of the Social Security

[[Page 142]]

     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(x) The term `nursing school clinic services' means 
     services provided by a health care facility operated by an 
     accredited school of nursing which provides primary care, 
     long-term care, mental health counseling, home health 
     counseling, home health care, or other health care services 
     which are within the scope of practice of a registered 
     nurse.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(a)(10)(C)(iv) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(C)(iv)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and (27)'' after ``(24)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective with respect to payments made under a 
     State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) for calendar quarters commencing with 
     the first calendar quarter beginning after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 64. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide improved reimbursement for clinical social worker services 
under the medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies 
in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through 
Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this 
legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social 
workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession 
that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through 
the Medicare program.
  First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker 
services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. 
Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a 
clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these 
services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. 
Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for 
services provided to a client who is hospitalized.
  Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care 
provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the 
nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health 
care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the 
disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 64

       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 ``Equity for Clinical Social 
     Workers Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER 
                   SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended to 
     read as follows: ``(ii) the amount determined by a fee 
     schedule established by the Secretary,''.
       (b) Definition of Clinical Social Worker Services 
     Expanded.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ``services 
     performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (1))'' and inserting ``such services and such 
     services and supplies furnished as an incident to such 
     services performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (1))''.
       (c) Clinical Social Worker Services Not To Be Included in 
     Inpatient Hospital Services.--Section 1861(b)(4) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``and services'' and inserting ``clinical social 
     worker services, and services''.
       (d) Treatment of Services Furnished in Inpatient Setting.--
     Section 1832(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended by striking ``and 
     services'' and inserting ``clinical social worker services, 
     and services''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made for clinical social worker 
     services furnished on or after January 1, 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 65. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
establish a psychology post-doctoral fellowship program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
psychology post-doctoral program.
  Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the 
Nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral 
science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, 
addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, 
and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral 
program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues.
  Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in 
traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining 
participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health 
professionals who have participated in these specialized federally 
funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment 
obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with 
the underserved.
  While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and 
mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral 
fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment 
skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For 
example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child 
recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a 
cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic 
learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to 
initiate effective treatment.
  Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is 
not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against 
women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child 
and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates 
of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral 
fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be 
of special benefit in addressing these problems.
  Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized 
training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation 
in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's 
underserved.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 65

       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 ``Psychologists in the Service 
     of the Public Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

       Part C of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 293k et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 749. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     psychology post-doctoral fellowship program to make grants to 
     and enter into contracts with eligible entities to encourage 
     the provision of psychological training and services in 
     underserved treatment areas.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) Individuals.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section an individual shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary shall require, including a 
     certification that such individual--
       ``(A) has received a doctoral degree through a graduate 
     program in psychology provided by an accredited institution 
     at the time such grant is awarded;
       ``(B) will provide services in a medically underserved 
     population during the period of such grant;
       ``(C) will comply with the provisions of subsection (c); 
     and
       ``(D) will provide any other information or assurances as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(2) Institutions.--In order to receive a grant or 
     contract under this section, an institution shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary shall require, 
     including a certification that such institution--

[[Page 143]]

       ``(A) is an entity, approved by the State, that provides 
     psychological services in medically underserved areas or to 
     medically underserved populations (including entities that 
     care for the mentally retarded, mental health institutions, 
     and prisons);
       ``(B) will use amounts provided to such institution under 
     this section to provide financial assistance in the form of 
     fellowships to qualified individuals who meet the 
     requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph 
     (1);
       ``(C) will not use in excess of 10 percent of amounts 
     provided under this section to pay for the administrative 
     costs of any fellowship programs established with such funds; 
     and
       ``(D) will provide any other information or assurance as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(c) Continued Provision of Services.--Any individual who 
     receives a grant or fellowship under this section shall 
     certify to the Secretary that such individual will continue 
     to provide the type of services for which such grant or 
     fellowship is awarded for at least 1 year after the term of 
     the grant or fellowship has expired.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section, including 
     regulations that define the terms `medically underserved 
     areas' or `medically unserved populations'.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2006.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 66. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to require the 
issuance of prisoner-of-war medal to civilian employees of the Federal 
Government who are forcibly detained or interned by an enemy government 
or a hostile force under wartime conditions; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's 
civilian employees of the Federal Government who have been forcibly 
detained or interred by a hostile government do not receive the 
recognition they deserve. My bill would correct this inequity and 
provide a prisoner of war medal for such citizens.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 66

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

     SECTION 1. PRISONER-OF-WAR MEDAL FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF 
                   THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Authority To Issue Prisoner-of-War Medal.--(1) Subpart 
     A of part III of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after chapter 23 the following new chapter:

                   ``CHAPTER 25--MISCELLANEOUS AWARDS

``Sec.
``2501. Prisoner-of-war medal: issue.

     ``Sec. 2501. Prisoner-of-war medal: issue

       ``(a) The President shall issue a prisoner-of-war medal to 
     any person who, while serving in any capacity as an officer 
     or employee of the Federal Government, was forcibly detained 
     or interned, not as a result of such person's own willful 
     misconduct--
       ``(1) by an enemy government or its agents, or a hostile 
     force, during a period of war; or
       ``(2) by a foreign government or its agents, or a hostile 
     force, during a period other than a period of war in which 
     such person was held under circumstances which the President 
     finds to have been comparable to the circumstances under 
     which members of the armed forces have generally been 
     forcibly detained or interned by enemy governments during 
     periods of war.
       ``(b) The prisoner-of-war medal shall be of appropriate 
     design, with ribbons and appurtenances.
       ``(c) Not more than one prisoner-of-war medal may be issued 
     to a person under this section or section 1128 of title 10. 
     However, for each succeeding service that would otherwise 
     justify the issuance of such a medal, the President (in the 
     case of service referred to in subsection (a) of this 
     section) or the Secretary concerned (in the case of service 
     referred to in section 1128(a) of title 10) may issue a 
     suitable device to be worn as determined by the President or 
     the Secretary, as the case may be.
       ``(d) For a person to be eligible for issuance of a 
     prisoner-of-war medal, the person's conduct must have been 
     honorable for the period of captivity which serves as the 
     basis for the issuance.
       ``(e) If a person dies before the issuance of a prisoner-
     of-war medal to which he is entitled, the medal may be issued 
     to the person's representative, as designated by the 
     President.
       ``(f) Under regulations to be prescribed by the President, 
     a prisoner-of-war medal that is lost, destroyed, or rendered 
     unfit for use without fault or neglect on the part of the 
     person to whom it was issued may be replaced without charge.
       ``(g) In this section, the term `period of war' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 101(11) of title 38.''.
       (2) The table of chapters at the beginning of part III of 
     such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     chapter 23 the following new item:

``25. Miscellaneous Awards..................................2501''.....

       (b) Applicability.--Section 2501 of title 5, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), applies with respect to any 
     person who, after April 5, 1917, is forcibly detained or 
     interned as described in subsection (a) of such section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 67. A bill for the relief of Jim K. Yoshida; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief 
bill on behalf of Jim K. Yoshida, to obtain recognition of his service 
with the U.S. military in Korea so that he may obtain veteran's status.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 67

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

     SECTION 1. VETERAN STATUS.

       (a) Entitlement to Status.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, Jim K. Yoshida of Honolulu, Hawaii, is 
     deemed to be a veteran for the purposes of all laws 
     administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (b) Treatment of Service.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the service of Jim K. Yoshida of Honolulu, 
     Hawaii, as a volunteer member of the United States Army 
     during the period beginning on July 2, 1950, and ending on 
     January 17, 1951, shall be deemed to be active military 
     service from which Jim K. Yoshida was discharged under 
     honorable conditions for the purposes of all laws 
     administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (c) Prospective Applicability.--No benefits may be paid or 
     otherwise provided to Jim K. Yoshida of Honolulu, Hawaii, by 
     reason of the enactment of this Act with respect to any 
     period before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 68. A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to improve 
benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Filipino Veterans' 
Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 to give our country the opportunity to 
right a wrong committed decades ago by providing Philippine-born 
veterans of World War II, who served in the United States Armed Forces, 
their hard-earned, due compensation.
  The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it 
was ceded from Spain following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the 
Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, 
which provided a 10-year time frame for the independence of the 
Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United 
States retained certain powers over the Philippines, including the 
right to call all military forces organized by the newly-formed 
Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed 
Forces.
  On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order 
calling members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of 
the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. Under this order, 
Filipinos were entitled to full veterans' benefits. More than 100,000 
Filipinos volunteered for the Philippine Commonwealth Army and fought 
alongside the United States Armed Forces.
  Shortly after Japan's surrender, Congress enacted the Armed Forces 
Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending American 
troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at 
various overseas locations.
  A provision included in the Recruitment Act called for the enlistment 
of Philippine citizens to constitute a new body of scouts. The New 
Philippine Scouts were authorized to receive pay and allowances for 
services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities 
had ceased, wartime service of the New Philippine Scouts

[[Page 144]]

continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946.
  Despite their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, Congress betrayed 
these veterans by enacting the Rescission Act of 1946 and declaring the 
service performed by the Philippine Commonwealth Army veterans as not 
``active service,'' thus denying many benefits to which these veterans 
were entitled.
  On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus 
Appropriations Rescission Act, which included a provision to limit 
veterans' benefits provided to Filipinos. This provision duplicated the 
language that had eliminated veterans' benefits under the First 
Rescission Act, and placed similar restrictions on veterans of the New 
Philippine Scouts. Thus, the Filipino veterans who fought in the 
service of the United States during World War II were precluded from 
receiving most veterans' benefits that had been available to them 
before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed 
forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status.
  The Congress tried to rectify the wrong committed against the 
Filipino veterans of World War II by amending the Nationality Act of 
1940, to grant the veterans the privilege of becoming United States 
citizens for having served in the United States Armed Forces of the Far 
East. The law expired at the end of 1946, but not before the United 
States had withdrawn its sole naturalization examiner from the 
Philippines for a nine-month period. This effectively denied Filipino 
veterans the opportunity to become citizens during this nine-month 
window. Forty-five years later, under the Immigration Act of 1990, 
certain Filipino veterans who had served during World War II became 
eligible for United States citizenship. Between November, 1990, and 
February, 1995, approximately 24,000 veterans took advantage of this 
opportunity and became United States citizens.
  Although progress has been made, we must, as a nation, correct fully 
the injustice caused by the Rescission Acts by providing equal 
treatment for the service and sacrifice by these brave men. The 
Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 will compensate 
eligible veterans by providing a number of needed benefits: Dependency 
and Indeminity Compensation to surviving widows of service-connected 
veterans living in the United States; a payment increase to New 
Philippine Scouts and survivors residing in the United States from 50 
percent to the full dollar amount for service-connected disability 
compensation; authorization of non-service connected disability 
pensions for veterans residing in the Philippines, but at a rate of 
$100 per month, which matches the amount of the veterans' pension 
received by them from the Philippine government; access to veterans 
hospitals for non-service connected disabled veterans in the same 
manner as United States veterans; and $500,000 per year to the 
Outpatient Clinic in Manila.
  Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored, so let us not turn our 
backs on those who sacrificed so much. Many of the Filipinos who fought 
so hard for our nation have been honored with American citizenship, but 
let us now work to repay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by 
providing them the veterans' benefits they have earned.
  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. 68

       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 ``Filipino Veterans' Benefits 
     Improvements Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. RATE OF PAYMENT OF CERTAIN BENEFITS FOR NEW 
                   PHILIPPINE SCOUTS RESIDING IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) Rate of Payment.--Section 107 of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``Payments'' and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection 
     (c), payments''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by inserting ``or (b)'' after ``subsection (a)'' the 
     first place it appears; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (a)'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``the applicable subsection''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply to benefits paid for months beginning on or 
     after that date.

     SEC. 3. RATE OF PAYMENT OF DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY 
                   COMPENSATION FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES OF CERTAIN 
                   FILIPINO VETERANS.

       (a) Rate of Payment.--Subsection (c) of section 107 of 
     title 38, United States Code, as amended by section 2 of this 
     Act, is further amended by inserting ``, and under chapter 13 
     of this title,'' after ``chapter 11 of this title''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply to benefits paid for months beginning on or 
     after that date.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN FILIPINO VETERANS FOR 
                   DISABILITY PENSION.

       (a) Eligibility.--Section 107 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3) of the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``15,'' before ``23,''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``subsections (c) 
     and (d)'' and inserting ``subsections (c), (d), and (e)''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2) of the first sentence and 
     inserting the following new paragraph (2):
       ``(2) chapters 11, 13 (except section 1312(a)), and 15 of 
     this title.''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``subsection (c)'' 
     and inserting ``subsections (c) and (e)''.
       (b) Rate of Payment.--That section is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) In the case of benefits under chapter 15 of this 
     title paid by reason of service described in subsection (a) 
     or (b), if--
       ``(1) the benefits are paid to an individual residing in 
     the United States who is a citizen of, or an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence in, the United States, the 
     second sentence of the applicable subsection shall not apply; 
     and
       ``(2) the benefits are paid to an individual residing in 
     the Republic of the Philippines, the benefits shall be paid 
     (notwithstanding any other provision of law) at the rate of 
     $100 per month.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply to benefits for months beginning on or after 
     that date.

      SEC. 5. ELIGIBILITY OF FILIPINO VETERANS FOR HEALTH CARE IN 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       The text of section 1734 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``The Secretary, within the limits of Department 
     facilities, shall furnish hospital and nursing home care and 
     medical services to Commonwealth Army veterans and new 
     Philippine Scouts in the same manner as provided for under 
     section 1710 of this title.''.

     SEC. 6. OUTPATIENT HEALTH CARE FOR VETERANS RESIDING IN THE 
                   PHILIPPINES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 17 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 1735 as section 1736; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1734 the following new 
     section 1735:

     ``Sec. 1735. Outpatient care and services for World War II 
       veterans residing in the Philippines

       ``(a) Outpatient Health Care.--The Secretary shall furnish 
     care and services to veterans of World War II, Commonwealth 
     Army veterans, and new Philippine Scouts for the treatment of 
     the service-connected disabilities and nonservice-connected 
     disabilities of such veterans and scouts residing in the 
     Republic of the Philippines on an outpatient basis at the 
     Manila VA Outpatient Clinic.
       ``(b) Limitations.--(1) The amount expended by the 
     Secretary for the purpose of subsection (a) in any fiscal 
     year may not exceed $500,000.
       ``(2) The authority of the Secretary to furnish care and 
     services under subsection (a) is effective in any fiscal year 
     only to the extent that appropriations are available for that 
     purpose.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 17 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 1735 and inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1734 the following new items:

``1735. Outpatient care and services for World War II veterans residing 
              in the Philippines.
``1736. Definitions.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 69. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to determine the 
validity of the claims of certain Filipinos that they performed 
military service on behalf of the United States during World

[[Page 145]]

War II; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that 
would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain 
nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on 
behalf of the United States during World War II.
  Our Filipino veterans fought side by side and sacrificed their lives 
on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the 
validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the 
opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I 
believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is 
important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino 
veterans and their families who participated in making us the great 
nation that we are today.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 69

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

     SECTION 1. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

       (a) In General.--Upon the written application of any person 
     who is a national of the Philippine Islands, the Secretary of 
     the Army shall determine whether such person performed any 
     military service in the Philippine Islands in aid of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States during World War II which 
     qualifies such person to receive any military, veterans', or 
     other benefits under the laws of the United States.
       (b) Information To Be Considered.--In making a 
     determination for the purpose of subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consider all information and evidence 
     (relating to service referred to in subsection (a)) that is 
     available to the Secretary, including information and 
     evidence submitted by the applicant, if any.

     SEC. 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

       (a) Issuance of Certificate of Service.--The Secretary of 
     the Army shall issue a certificate of service to each person 
     determined by the Secretary to have performed military 
     service described in section 1(a).
       (b) Effect of Certificate of Service.--A certificate of 
     service issued to any person under subsection (a) shall, for 
     the purpose of any law of the United States, conclusively 
     establish the period, nature, and character of the military 
     service described in the certificate.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATIONS BY SURVIVORS.

       An application submitted by a surviving spouse, child, or 
     parent of a deceased person described in section 1(a) shall 
     be treated as an application submitted by such person.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION PERIOD.

       The Secretary of the Army may not consider for the purpose 
     of this Act any application received by the Secretary more 
     than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS BY THE 
                   SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

       No benefits shall accrue to any person for any period 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act as a result of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Army shall prescribe regulations to 
     carry out sections 1, 3, and 4.

     SEC. 7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       Any entitlement of a person to receive veterans' benefits 
     by reason of this Act shall be administered by the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs pursuant to regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``World War II'' means the period 
     beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on December 31, 
     1946.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 70. A bill to restore the traditional day of observance of 
Memorial Day, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in our efforts to accommodate many 
Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost 
sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would 
restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half 
mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the 
President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans 
Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help 
restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they 
have made on behalf of our Nation
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 70

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

     SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OBSERVANCE OF 
                   MEMORIAL DAY.

       (a) Designation of Legal Public Holiday.--Section 6103(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended in the item 
     relating to Memorial Day by striking ``the last Monday in 
     May.'' and inserting ``May 30.''.
       (b) Observances and Ceremonies.--Section 116 of title 36, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The last Monday in 
     May'' and inserting ``May 30''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) calling on the people of the United States to observe 
     Memorial Day as a day of ceremonies for showing respect for 
     American veterans of wars and other military conflicts; 
     and''.
       (c) Display of Flag.--Section 6(d) of title 4, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the last Monday in 
     May;'' and inserting ``May 30;''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 73. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National 
Center for Social Work Research.
  Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services 
throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons 
suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect.
  The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information 
about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with an 
emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.
  While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work 
research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other 
federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of 
these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and 
opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of 
a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral 
and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, 
the elderly, and others.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-
effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we 
must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers 
to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social 
Work can provide in facilitating their work.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 73

       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 ``National Center for Social 
     Work Research Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) social workers focus on the improvement of individual 
     and family functioning and the creation of effective health 
     and mental health prevention and treatment interventions in 
     order for individuals to become more productive members of 
     society;
       (2) social workers provide front line prevention and 
     treatment services in the areas of school violence, aging, 
     teen pregnancy, child abuse, domestic violence, juvenile 
     crime, and substance abuse, particularly in rural and 
     underserved communities; and
       (3) social workers are in a unique position to provide 
     valuable research information on these complex social 
     concerns, taking into account a wide range of social, 
     medical, economic and community influences from an

[[Page 146]]

     interdisciplinary, family-centered and community-based 
     approach.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SOCIAL WORK 
                   RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(b)(2) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(H) The National Center for Social Work Research.''.
       (b) Establishment.--Part E of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

         ``Subpart 7--National Center for Social Work Research

     ``SEC. 485J. PURPOSE OF CENTER.

       ``The general purpose of the National Center for Social 
     Work Research (referred to in this subpart as the `Center') 
     is the conduct and support of, and dissemination of targeted 
     research concerning social work methods and outcomes related 
     to problems of significant social concern. The Center shall--
       ``(1) promote research and training that is designed to 
     inform social work practices, thus increasing the knowledge 
     base which promotes a healthier America; and
       ``(2) provide policymakers with empirically-based research 
     information to enable such policymakers to better understand 
     complex social issues and make informed funding decisions 
     about service effectiveness and cost efficiency.

     ``SEC. 485K. SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--To carry out the purpose described in 
     section 485J, the Director of the Center may provide research 
     training and instruction and establish, in the Center and in 
     other nonprofit institutions, research traineeships and 
     fellowships in the study and investigation of the prevention 
     of disease, health promotion, the association of 
     socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, age and geographical 
     location and health, the social work care of individuals 
     with, and families of individuals with, acute and chronic 
     illnesses, child abuse, neglect, and youth violence, and 
     child and family care to address problems of significant 
     social concern especially in underserved populations and 
     underserved geographical areas.
       ``(b) Stipends and Allowances.--The Director of the Center 
     may provide individuals receiving training and instruction or 
     traineeships or fellowships under subsection (a) with such 
     stipends and allowances (including amounts for travel and 
     subsistence and dependency allowances) as the Director 
     determines necessary.
       ``(c) Grants.--The Director of the Center may make grants 
     to nonprofit institutions to provide training and instruction 
     and traineeships and fellowships under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 485L. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     advisory council for the Center that shall advise, assist, 
     consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary and 
     the Director of the Center on matters related to the 
     activities carried out by and through the Center and the 
     policies with respect to such activities.
       ``(2) Gifts.--The advisory council for the Center may 
     recommend to the Secretary the acceptance, in accordance with 
     section 231, of conditional gifts for study, investigations, 
     and research and for the acquisition of grounds or 
     construction, equipment, or maintenance of facilities for the 
     Center.
       ``(3) Other duties and functions.--The advisory council for 
     the Center--
       ``(A)(i) may make recommendations to the Director of the 
     Center with respect to research to be conducted by the 
     Center;
       ``(ii) may review applications for grants and cooperative 
     agreements for research or training and recommend for 
     approval applications for projects that demonstrate the 
     probability of making valuable contributions to human 
     knowledge; and
       ``(iii) may review any grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement proposed to be made or entered into by the Center;
       ``(B) may collect, by correspondence or by personal 
     investigation, information relating to studies that are being 
     carried out in the United States or any other country and, 
     with the approval of the Director of the Center, make such 
     information available through appropriate publications; and
       ``(C) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshops and 
     conferences.
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The advisory council shall be composed 
     of the ex officio members described in paragraph (2) and not 
     more than 18 individuals to be appointed by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members of the 
     advisory council shall include--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
     Director of NIH, the Director of the Center, the Chief Social 
     Work Officer of the Veterans' Administration, the Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the Associate 
     Director of Prevention Research at the National Institute of 
     Mental Health, the Director of the Division of Epidemiology 
     and Services Research, the Assistant Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services for the Administration for Children and 
     Families, the Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office 
     of Educational Research and Improvement, the Assistant 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Community 
     Planning and Development, and the Assistant Attorney General 
     for Office of Justice Programs (or the designees of such 
     officers); and
       ``(B) such additional officers or employees of the United 
     States as the Secretary determines necessary for the advisory 
     council to effectively carry out its functions.
       ``(3) Appointed members.--The Secretary shall appoint not 
     to exceed 18 individuals to the advisory council, of which--
       ``(A) not more than two-thirds of such individual shall be 
     appointed from among the leading representatives of the 
     health and scientific disciplines (including public health 
     and the behavioral or social sciences) relevant to the 
     activities of the Center, and at least 7 such individuals 
     shall be professional social workers who are recognized 
     experts in the area of clinical practice, education, or 
     research; and
       ``(B) not more than one-third of such individuals shall be 
     appointed from the general public and shall include leaders 
     in fields of public policy, law, health policy, economics, 
     and management.

     The Secretary shall make appointments to the advisory council 
     in such a manner as to ensure that the terms of the members 
     do not all expire in the same year.
       ``(4) Compensation.--Members of the advisory council who 
     are officers or employees of the United States shall not 
     receive any compensation for service on the advisory council. 
     The remaining members shall receive, for each day (including 
     travel time) they are engaged in the performance of the 
     functions of the advisory council, compensation at rates not 
     to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate in effect 
     for an individual at grade GS-18 of the General Schedule.
       ``(c) Terms.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term of office of an individual 
     appointed to the advisory council under subsection (b)(3) 
     shall be 4 years, except that any individual appointed to 
     fill a vacancy on the advisory council shall serve for the 
     remainder of the unexpired term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of the member's term until a successor has been 
     appointed.
       ``(2) Reappointments.--A member of the advisory council who 
     has been appointed under subsection (b)(3) for a term of 4 
     years may not be reappointed to the advisory council prior to 
     the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the prior term expired.
       ``(3) Vacancy.--If a vacancy occurs on the advisory council 
     among the members under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary 
     shall make an appointment to fill that vacancy not later than 
     90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.
       ``(d) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the advisory council 
     shall be selected by the Secretary from among the members 
     appointed under subsection (b)(3), except that the Secretary 
     may select the Director of the Center to be the chairperson 
     of the advisory council. The term of office of the 
     chairperson shall be 2 years.
       ``(e) Meetings.--The advisory council shall meet at the 
     call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Director 
     of the Center, but not less than 3 times each fiscal year. 
     The location of the meetings of the advisory council shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Director of the Center.
       ``(f) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the 
     Center shall designate a member of the staff of the Center to 
     serve as the executive secretary of the advisory council. The 
     Director of the Center shall make available to the advisory 
     council such staff, information, and other assistance as the 
     council may require to carry out its functions. The Director 
     of the Center shall provide orientation and training for new 
     members of the advisory council to provide such members with 
     such information and training as may be appropriate for their 
     effective participation in the functions of the advisory 
     council.
       ``(g) Comments and Recommendations.--The advisory council 
     may prepare, for inclusion in the biennial report under 
     section 485M--
       ``(1) comments with respect to the activities of the 
     advisory council in the fiscal years for which the report is 
     prepared;
       ``(2) comments on the progress of the Center in meeting its 
     objectives; and
       ``(3) recommendations with respect to the future direction 
     and program and policy emphasis of the center.

     The advisory council may prepare such additional reports as 
     it may determine appropriate.

     ``SEC. 485M. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       ``The Director of the Center, after consultation with the 
     advisory council for the Center, shall prepare for inclusion 
     in the biennial report under section 403, a biennial report 
     that shall consist of a description of the activities of the 
     Center and program policies of the Director of the Center in 
     the fiscal years for which the report is prepared. The 
     Director of the Center may prepare such additional reports as 
     the Director determines appropriate. The Director of the 
     Center shall provide the advisory council of the Center an 
     opportunity for the submission of the written comments 
     described in section 485L(g).

[[Page 147]]



     ``SEC. 485N. QUARTERLY REPORT.

       ``The Director of the Center shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress a quarterly report that contains a summary of 
     findings and policy implications derived from research 
     conducted or supported through the Center.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 74. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
make certain graduate programs in professional psychology eligible to 
participate in various health professionals loan program; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to 
modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to 
provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the 
opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.
  Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with 
eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan 
guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of 
behavioral science expertise into our community of public health 
providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution 
being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most 
distressing problems.
  The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical 
disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title 
VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for 
the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically 
disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the 
provision of critical services to minority populations because often 
they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural 
framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community 
settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged 
individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued 
support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health 
care services to underserved communities.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 74

       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 ``Strengthen the Public Health 
     Service Act''.

     SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFESSIONS LOAN 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Loan Agreements.--Section 721 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any public or 
     nonprofit school that offers a graduate program in 
     professional psychology'' after ``veterinary medicine'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting ``, or to a graduate 
     degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of 
     veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, or schools that 
     offer graduate programs in professional psychology'' after 
     ``veterinary medicine''.
       (b) Loan Provisions.--Section 722 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292r) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``, or to a graduate 
     degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of 
     veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'';
       (2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, or at a school that offers a graduate 
     program in professional psychology'' after ``veterinary 
     medicine''; and
       (3) in subsection (k)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or 
     podiatry'' and inserting ``podiatry, or professional 
     psychology''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or podiatric medicine'' 
     and inserting ``podiatric medicine, or professional 
     psychology''.

     SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Health Professions Data.--Section 792(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295k(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (b) Prohibition Against Discrimination on Basis of Sex.--
     Section 794 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m) 
     is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 799B(1)(B) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p(1)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``clinical'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``professional''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 75. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
health care practitioners in rural areas with training in preventive 
health care, including both physical and mental care, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on the Rural 
Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003, a bill that responds to 
the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and 
disease prevention programs.
  Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently 
lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 
million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are 
without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where 
providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as 
geographical barriers lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge 
about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, 
language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to 
medical care.
  Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the 
result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without 
vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive 
immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries 
occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early 
symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and 
often develop into full-blown disorders.
  An Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for 
Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,'' 
highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The 
training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to 
meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health 
care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.
  Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers 
must be encouraged. Through such training programs, rural health care 
providers can build a strong educational foundation in the behavioral, 
biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team 
prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both 
health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation 
between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their 
services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall 
health of rural communities.
  The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003 would implement 
the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is 
based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific 
interventions for those risk factors.
  The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places 
a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By 
implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the 
potential overall health and financial savings are enormous.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 75

       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 ``Rural Preventive Health Care 
     Training Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 294 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 754 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 754A. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts with, eligible applicants to enable such 
     applicants to provide preventive health care training, in 
     accordance with subsection (c), to health care practitioners 
     practicing in

[[Page 148]]

     rural areas. Such training shall, to the extent practicable, 
     include training in health care to prevent both physical and 
     mental disorders before the initial occurrence of such 
     disorders. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall encourage, but may not require, the use of 
     interdisciplinary training project applications.
       ``(b) Limitation.--To be eligible to receive training using 
     assistance provided under subsection (a), a health care 
     practitioner shall be determined by the eligible applicant 
     involved to be practicing, or desiring to practice, in a 
     rural area.
       ``(c) Use of Assistance.--Amounts received under a grant 
     made or contract entered into under this section shall be 
     used--
       ``(1) to provide student stipends to individuals attending 
     rural community colleges or other institutions that service 
     predominantly rural communities, for the purpose of enabling 
     the individuals to receive preventive health care training;
       ``(2) to increase staff support at rural community colleges 
     or other institutions that service predominantly rural 
     communities to facilitate the provision of preventive health 
     care training;
       ``(3) to provide training in appropriate research and 
     program evaluation skills in rural communities;
       ``(4) to create and implement innovative programs and 
     curricula with a specific prevention component; and
       ``(5) for other purposes as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2006.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 77. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
ensure that social work students or social work schools are eligible 
for support under certain programs to assist individuals in pursing 
health careers and programs of grants for training projects in 
geriatrics, and to establish a social work training program; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social 
workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health 
Service Act. This legislation would: 1. establish a new social work 
training program, 2. ensure that social work students are eligible for 
support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 3. provide social 
work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of 
Excellence programs, 4. permit schools offering degrees in social work 
to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and 5. ensure 
that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health 
Maintenance Organization Act.
  Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to 
people of this Nation, few Federal programs exist to provide 
opportunities for social work training in health and mental health 
care.
  Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to 
our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing 
innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe 
it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers 
possess continues to be available to the citizens of this Nation. This 
bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and 
social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical 
importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I 
believe it is time to provide them with the recognition they deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 77

       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 ``Strengthen Social Work 
     Training Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS.

       (a) Health Professions School.--Section 736(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293(g)(1)(A)) is amended 
     by striking ``graduate program in behavioral or mental 
     health'' and inserting ``graduate program in behavioral or 
     mental health including a school offering graduate programs 
     in clinical social work, or programs in social work''.
       (b) Scholarships, Generally.--Section 737(d)(1)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293a(d)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``mental health practice'' and inserting 
     ``mental health practice including graduate programs in 
     clinical psychology, graduate programs in clinical social 
     work, or programs in social work''.
       (c) Faculty Positions.--Section 738(a)(3) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293b(a)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``offering graduate programs in behavioral and 
     mental health'' and inserting ``offering graduate programs in 
     behavioral and mental health including graduate programs in 
     clinical psychology, graduate programs in clinical social 
     work, or programs in social work''.

     SEC. 3. GERIATRICS TRAINING PROJECTS.

       Section 753(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 294c(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``schools offering 
     degrees in social work,'' after ``teaching hospitals,''.

     SEC. 4. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

       Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 770 as section 770A;
       (2) by inserting after section 769, the following:

     ``SEC. 770. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Training Generally.--The Secretary may make grants 
     to, or enter into contracts with, any public or nonprofit 
     private hospital, school offering programs in social work, or 
     to or with a public or private nonprofit entity (which the 
     Secretary has determined is capable of carrying out such 
     grant or contract)--
       ``(1) to plan, develop, and operate, or participate in, an 
     approved social work training program (including an approved 
     residency or internship program) for students, interns, 
     residents, or practicing physicians;
       ``(2) to provide financial assistance (in the form of 
     traineeships and fellowships) to students, interns, 
     residents, practicing physicians, or other individuals, who 
     are in need thereof, who are participants in any such 
     program, and who plan to specialize or work in the practice 
     of social work;
       ``(3) to plan, develop, and operate a program for the 
     training of individuals who plan to teach in social work 
     training programs; and
       ``(4) to provide financial assistance (in the form of 
     traineeships and fellowships) to individuals who are 
     participants in any such program and who plan to teach in a 
     social work training program.
       ``(b) Academic Administrative Units.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to or 
     enter into contracts with schools offering programs in social 
     work to meet the costs of projects to establish, maintain, or 
     improve academic administrative units (which may be 
     departments, divisions, or other units) to provide clinical 
     instruction in social work.
       ``(2) Preference in making awards.--In making awards of 
     grants and contracts under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     give preference to any qualified applicant for such an award 
     that agrees to expend the award for the purpose of--
       ``(A) establishing an academic administrative unit for 
     programs in social work; or
       ``(B) substantially expanding the programs of such a unit.
       ``(c) Duration of Award.--The period during which payments 
     are made to an entity from an award of a grant or contract 
     under subsection (a) may not exceed 5 years. The provision of 
     such payments shall be subject to annual approval by the 
     Secretary of the payments and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations for the fiscal year involved to make the 
     payments.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 
     through 2006.
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make 
     available not less than 20 percent for awards of grants and 
     contracts under subsection (b).''; and
       (3) in section 770A (as so redesignated) by inserting 
     ``other than section 770,'' after ``carrying out this 
     subpart,''.

     SEC. 5. CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES.

       Section 1302 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300e-1) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``clinical 
     social worker,'' after ``psychologist,'' each place it 
     appears;
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``and psychologists'' 
     and inserting ``psychologists, and clinical social workers''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``clinical social 
     work,'' after ``psychology,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 78. A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to revise 
certain provisions relating to the appointment of professional 
psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend 
Chapter 74 of Title 38, United States Code, to revise certain 
provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and professional 
psychologists in the Veterans

[[Page 149]]

Health Administration, VHA. The VHA has a long history of maintaining a 
staff of the very best health care professionals to provide care to 
those men and women who have served our country in the Armed Forces.
  Recently, a distressing situation regarding the care of our veterans 
has come to my attention: the recruitment and retention of 
psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans Affairs has 
become a significant problem.
  The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the 
behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions afflicting a 
significant portion of our veterans. Programs related to homelessness, 
substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder have received 
funding from the Congress in recent years.
  Psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are essential to the 
successful implementation of these programs. Consequently, the high 
vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA might seriously 
jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall patient 
care in the VHA.
  Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of 
factors including a pay scale that is not commensurate with private 
sector rates together with a low number of clinical and professional 
psychologists appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel 
Management, OPM. Most new hires have no post-doctoral experience, and 
are hired immediately after a VHA internship. Recruitment, when 
successful, takes up to six months or longer.
  Retention of psychologists in the VHA system poses an even more 
significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40 percent of VHA 
psychologists have five years or less of post-doctoral experience. 
Psychologists leave the VHA system after five years because they have 
almost reached peak levels for salary and professional advancement. 
Under the present system, psychologists cannot be recognized, or 
appropriately compensated, for excellence or for taking on additional 
responsibilities such as running treatment programs.
  In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA 
supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with 
behavioral and mental health disorders deserve better psychological 
care from more experienced professionals than they are now receiving.
  Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care 
providers in the VHA who are not included in Title 38. This is without 
question a significant factor in the recruitment and retention 
difficulties that I have mentioned.
  Title 38 appointment authority for psychologists would help 
ameliorate the recruitment and retention problems. The length of time 
needed to recruit psychologists could be shortened by eliminating the 
requirement for applicants to be rated by the OPM. This would also 
encourage the recruitment of applicants who are not recent VHA interns 
by reducing the amount of time between identifying a desirable 
applicant and being able to offer that applicant a position.
  It is expected that problems in retention will be greatly alleviated 
by the implementation of a Title 38 system that offers financial 
incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development. 
Achievements that would merit salary increases include such activities 
as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs, 
implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of patient care, making significant 
contributions to the science of psychology, and becoming a Fellow of 
the American Psychological Association.
  The addition of psychologists to Title 38, as proposed by this 
amendment, would provide relief for the retention and recruitment 
issues and enhance the quality of care for our veterans and their 
families.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 78

       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 ``Veteran's Health 
     Administration Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF 
                   PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE VETERANS 
                   HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 7401(3) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``who hold diplomas as 
     diplomates in psychology from an accrediting authority 
     approved by the Secretary''.
       (b) Certain Other Appointments.--Section 7405(a) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``Certified or'' and 
     inserting ``Professional psychologists, certified or''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``Certified or'' and 
     inserting ``Professional psychologists, certified or''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Appointment Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     begin to make appointments of professional psychologists in 
     the Veterans Health Administration under section 7401(3) of 
     title 38, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), 
     not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 79. A bill to allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations 
required under chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to 
offenders with mental disease or defect, to be conducted by a clinical 
social worker; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend 
Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical 
social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the 
Federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.
  I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system 
to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health 
expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would 
be very much in our Nation's best interest.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 79

       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 ``Psychiatric and 
     Psychological Examinations Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.

       Section 4247(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended, in the first sentence, by striking ``psychiatrist or 
     psychologist'' and inserting ``psychiatrist, psychologist, or 
     clinical social worker''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. IOUYE:
  S. 80. A bill to recognize the organization known as the National 
Academies of Practice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would provide a Federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. 
This organization represents outstanding medical professionals who have 
made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, 
medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathy, podiatry, social 
work, veterinary medicine, and pharmacy. When fully established, each 
of the ten academies will possess 100 distinguished practitioners 
selected by their peers. These academics will be able to provide the 
Congress of the United States and the executive branch with 
considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective 
of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing 
health care.
  As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding 
the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best 
interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to 
the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care 
practitioners.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page 150]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 80

       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 ``National Academies of 
     Practice Recognition Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CHARTER.

       The National Academies of Practice organized and 
     incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, is 
     hereby recognized as such and is granted a Federal charter.

     SEC. 3. CORPORATE POWERS.

       The National Academies of Practice (referred to in this Act 
     as the ``corporation'') shall have only those powers granted 
     to it through its bylaws and articles of incorporation filed 
     in the State in which it is incorporated and subject to the 
     laws of such State.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSES OF CORPORATION.

       The purposes of the corporation shall be to honor persons 
     who have made significant contributions to the practice of 
     applied psychology, dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry, 
     osteopathy, podiatry, social work, veterinary medicine, 
     pharmacy, and other health care professions, and to improve 
     the practices in such professions by disseminating 
     information about new techniques and procedures.

     SEC. 5. SERVICE OF PROCESS.

       With respect to service of process, the corporation shall 
     comply with the laws of the State in which it is incorporated 
     and those States in which it carries on its activities in 
     furtherance of its corporate purposes.

     SEC. 6. MEMBERSHIP.

       Eligibility for membership in the corporation and the 
     rights and privileges of members shall be as provided in the 
     bylaws of the corporation.

     SEC. 7. BOARD OF DIRECTORS; COMPOSITION; RESPONSIBILITIES.

       The composition and the responsibilities of the board of 
     directors of the corporation shall be as provided in the 
     articles of incorporation of the corporation and in 
     conformity with the laws of the State in which it is 
     incorporated.

     SEC. 8. OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION.

       The officers of the corporation and the election of such 
     officers shall be as provided in the articles of 
     incorporation of the corporation and in conformity with the 
     laws of the State in which it is incorporated.

     SEC. 9. RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Use of Income and Assets.--No part of the income or 
     assets of the corporation shall inure to any member, officer, 
     or director of the corporation or be distributed to any such 
     person during the life of the charter under this Act. Nothing 
     in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the payment 
     of reasonable compensation to the officers of the corporation 
     or reimbursement for actual necessary expenses in amounts 
     approved by the board of directors.
       (b) Loans.--The corporation shall not make any loan to any 
     officer, director, or employee of the corporation.
       (c) Political Activity.--The corporation, any officer, or 
     any director of the corporation, acting as such officer or 
     director, shall not contribute to, support, or otherwise 
     participate in any political activity or in any manner 
     attempt to influence legislation.
       (d) Issuance of Stock and Payment of Dividends.--The 
     corporation shall have no power to issue any shares of stock 
     nor to declare or pay any dividends.
       (e) Claims of Federal Approval.--The corporation shall not 
     claim congressional approval or Federal Government authority 
     for any of its activities.

     SEC. 10. LIABILITY.

       The corporation shall be liable for the acts of its 
     officers and agents when acting within the scope of their 
     authority.

     SEC. 11. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) Books and Records of Account.--The corporation shall 
     keep correct and complete books and records of account and 
     shall keep minutes of any proceeding of the corporation 
     involving any of its members, the board of directors, or any 
     committee having authority under the board of directors.
       (b) Names and Addresses of Members.--The corporation shall 
     keep at its principal office a record of the names and 
     addresses of all members having the right to vote in any 
     proceeding of the corporation.
       (c) Right To Inspect Books and Records.--All books and 
     records of the corporation may be inspected by any member 
     having the right to vote, or by any agent or attorney of such 
     member, for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.
       (d) Application of State Law.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to contravene any applicable State law.

     SEC. 12. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The corporation shall report annually to the Congress 
     concerning the activities of the corporation during the 
     preceding fiscal year. The report shall not be printed as a 
     public document.

     SEC. 13. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND OR REPEAL CHARTER.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is expressly 
     reserved to Congress.

     SEC. 14. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``State'' includes the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 
     territories and possessions of the United States.

     SEC. 15. TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.

       The corporation shall maintain its status as an 
     organization exempt from taxation as provided in the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 or any corresponding similar provision.

     SEC. 16. TERMINATION.

       If the corporation fails to comply with any of the 
     restrictions or provisions of this Act the charter granted by 
     this Act shall terminate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 81. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
authorize the use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to 
determine work-related emotional and mental illnesses; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social 
Workers' Recognition Act of 2003 to correct a continuing problem in the 
Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide 
clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent 
providers of quality mental health care services.
  Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and 
treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance 
plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, 
does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by 
clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' 
compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am 
introducing corrects this problem.
  It is a sad irony that federal employees may select a clinical social 
worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, 
but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation 
evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations 
provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal 
employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation 
mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an 
undue burden on Federal employees where clinical social workers are the 
only available providers of mental health care.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 81

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical Social Workers' 
     Recognition Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS FOR FEDERAL 
                   WORKER COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

       Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     and clinical social workers''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     clinical social workers,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 82. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 
certain helicopter uses from ticket taxes on transportation by air; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would 
exempt from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes on air 
transportation by helicopters of individuals and cargo for the purpose 
of conducting removal and environmental restoration activities relating 
to unexploded ordnance on the Island of Kahoolawe.
  The Kahoolawe Island Unexploded Ordnance Clearance and Environmental 
Restoration Project is authorized under Title X of the Fiscal Year 1994 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Island of Kahoolawe is 
uninhabited, and it served as a bombing range for the Department of 
Defense until 1990. The Department of Defense is currently in the 
process of cleaning up and restoring Kahoolawe

[[Page 151]]

for its eventual return to the State of Hawaii.
  The Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes help support our 
nation's air traffic systems and airport infrastructures. However, 
there are no airports or landing zones on Kahoolawe that receive 
benefits from the Trust Fund. In addition, the taxes place an undue 
burden on the air transportation services provided to the Kahoolawe 
Clearance Project. Compared to a normal airline whose aircraft make 
fewer trips per day over much longer distances, the services provided 
to the project are very frequent, with many trips over very short 
distances. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 82

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

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN HELICOPTER USES FROM TAXES ON 
                   TRANSPORTATION BY AIR.

       (a) In General.--Section 4261 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j) and by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Additional Exemption for Certain Helicopter Uses.--No 
     tax shall be imposed under this section or section 4271 on 
     air transportation by helicopter for the purpose of 
     transporting individuals and cargo to and from sites for the 
     purpose of conducting removal and environmental restoration 
     activities relating to unexploded ordnance.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4041(l) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``(f) or (g)'' 
     and inserting ``(f), (g), or (i)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to transportation beginning after June 30, 1997, 
     and before August 1, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 86. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
credit for the health insurance expenses of small businesses; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am introducing the Small Employer Tax 
Assistance for Health Care Act of 2003, SETAH, a bill to provide tax 
subsidy to small employers to help them provide health coverage to 
their workers.
  The problem of the uninsured is a problem of working families, but 7 
out of 10 workers without coverage are not even offered coverage 
through their employers. This bill provides assistance and incentives 
for those employers who are least likely and least able to afford 
coverage for their workers, small, low-wage firms.
  Statistics show that small firms are half as likely to offer coverage 
as large firms, while the offer rate for small low-wage firms is cut 50 
percent further, compared to small high-wage firms.
  This legislation will offer a significant tax break to those 
businesses in order to subsidize their purchase of health insurance. 
The credit is designed sensibly, so that rates adjust slowly as firm 
size and average wage increase.
  Tax credits can unintentionally penalize firms that grow beyond the 
eligibility limitation. For instance, a tax credit for firms smaller 
than 20 means a firm's decision to add the 21st worker could add 
thousands to their tax bill. Tax credits should help businesses and 
their workers prosper, and not unintentionally discourage business 
growth.
  The bill would contain the following elements:
  50 Percent Credit to Help Workers at Smallest and Lowest-Wage firms. 
All firms smaller than 10, whose average worker earns minimum wage, are 
the ones who have the lowest insurance offer rates. These firms will 
receive a 50 percent tax credit up to $2000 per individual policy, and 
$5000 per family.
  Double Phase-Out. Tax credits can unintentionally penalize firms that 
grow beyond the eligibility limitation. Using a ``double phase-out'' so 
that the tax credit diminishes gradually as firm size and average wage 
increase, eliminating the ``cliff effect'' that would otherwise 
discourage firms from adding employees or increasing wages.
  5 Percent Floor. All firms under 50 workers, with average wages under 
$30,000, would be protected by a 5 percent floor.
  Simplified Eligibility for All Small Low-Wage Firms. Restricting tax 
credits to only those firms who did not previously offer can 
unintentionally give small businesses starting out an incentive not to 
offer health insurance. By contract, the SETAH credit will be available 
to all small, low-wage firms, defined as smaller than 50 employees, and 
under $30,000 in average wages, that quality, regardless of whether 
they have offered coverage before. This helps employers who are doing 
the right thing and encourages others to follow their example by 
offering coverage.
  Fiscally Prudent Targeting. Because the credit is well-targeted to 
firms who are unlikely to offer anyway, the credit remains less 
duplicative and more efficient than other credits. At an overall cost 
of $6 to $7 billion annually, the SETAH credit covers 3.3 million new 
individuals for roughly $2000 per newly insured individual, which is 
crucial in an era of fiscal prudence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 87. A bill to provide for homeland security block grants; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the kind of 
economic policies we are pursuing because I believe in the absence of 
changing our economic policies we are not likely to get our economy 
growing again. It is important we do all we can to make the right 
decisions.
  I know the President was in Chicago today. He addressed his proposal 
for the economy. I understand it is a package of approximately $650 
billion, most of which concern some provisions that will affect 
relatively affluent Americans. I look forward to seeing what else is in 
that package.
  We have to recognize the economic challenges we now confront are not 
just ones in Washington but are throughout our Nation, in the capitals 
of our States, and in our cities. In Washington, we have to be 
cognizant of the ripple effect on revenues to our States and cities by 
the decisions we make.
  In fact, one of the unintended consequences of many of the changes 
that were made at the beginning of the 107th Congress with respect to 
tax policy and that are embedded in what the President is proposing 
will mean further reduction of revenues for State governments, which 
cannot print money, which have to balance budgets, which have to live 
within their means, and the net effect will be either States having to 
raise their taxes, local communities having to raise their property 
taxes, or dramatic cuts in services.
  Among those services that we cannot as a Nation afford to cut are the 
ones that directly bear on homeland security: Our police and law 
enforcement officers, our firefighters, and our first responders. Today 
I am reintroducing the Homeland Security Block Grant Act that would 
provide direct funding to our local communities.
  For me, this is one of our first orders of business because our first 
responders are our first line of defense at home.
  Since September 11, 2001, cities, counties, and towns, large and 
small, urban and rural, have responded to the call to be more vigilant, 
to beef up our homeland defenses. They have invested more than $2.6 
billion from their own budgets. They have purchased more equipment. 
They have provided training for emergency responders. They are doing 
the very best they can to deal with all of the new challenges and 
threats we face.
  I have met with mayors, fire commissioners, police chiefs, and other 
emergency workers who all tell me they do not have the resources they 
need in order to protect us.
  I have conducted a survey of towns, cities, and counties across New 
York. From Buffalo to the tip of Long Island, we have heard the same 
thing: Despite

[[Page 152]]

this body's passage of legislation creating a Homeland Security 
Department, they have yet to see any additional funding where they need 
it most, close to home.
  Most of the money that has been passed and sent to the States has not 
been addressed directly at beefing up local fire, police, and emergency 
responders but for a specialized purpose of confronting the challenge 
of bioterrorism.
  We have a declining economy, rising unemployment, terrible revenue 
problems in our cities and States, and our answer has been to create a 
new bureaucracy in Washington. I believe creating the new Homeland 
Security Department, without funding our first responders on the front 
lines, is like building a hospital without hiring doctors and nurses. 
We may have a good plan on paper, but we do not have the means to 
execute it.
  The bill I am introducing will give our first responders $3.5 billion 
to give them the resources they need to do what they know they must 
accomplish. We should not be determining in Washington how they spend 
this money. That should be done at the local level. What Buffalo needs 
may be different from Rochester which is different from Syracuse or 
Albany. It makes no sense to hold up this money any longer. We should 
disperse the money appropriated and we should funnel it, State to local 
communities, and we should be looking at what our unmet needs are.
  The Homeland Security Block Grant Act of 2003 will provide direct 
funding to our communities and first responders. That is where the 
money should go.
  I am delighted--my belief that this is the appropriate step to take 
is endorsed by the United States Conference of Mayors, the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association 
of Firefighters, the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association, the 
National Association of Police Organizations, and the Police Executive 
Research Forum.
  We did well today to deal with part of our problem when it comes to 
the unemployed. I look forward to working with my colleagues to deal 
with the other part, which are those who are chronically unemployed, to 
come up with ways of helping them be able to make a transition or just 
hold their families together until the economy turns around. I also 
hope we will address homeland security in a way that gets the money 
where it needs to be, on the front lines of our cities, our towns, with 
our police and our firefighters and emergency responders. That would 
send a strong signal that homeland security is not just a slogan, it is 
a reality throughout America.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 88. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend 
future reductions of income tax rates if the Social Security surpluses 
are used to fund such tax rate cuts; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have a whole list of every senator, 
and every candidate in last year's election, all coming out and saying 
we won't touch Social Security. The President of the United States 
promised Congress in his first address to a Joint Session in February 
2001 that all Social Security surplus money will be budgeted for Social 
Security and Social Security only.
  Now that everyone is talking about cutting taxes, I do not want to 
forget the promises made on Social Security. I want to hold everyone to 
their word, because that is what the American people who depend on 
Social Security want as priority one. So, today, I am introducing a 
bill that says if the Treasury Secretary of the United States 
determines that if on October 1, 2003, there is a Federal on-budget 
deficit, future reductions in income tax rates will be suspended. Once 
the deficit no longer exists, the tax reductions can be put in place 
again.
  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to do away with tax cuts, so long 
as you can pay for them. The purpose of this Act is simply to ensure 
that no Social Security surpluses be used to pay for any further tax 
cuts. I want to make sure Social Security will be around when everyone 
retires.
  So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to pass this and make Social Security secure once and for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 90. A bill to extend certain budgetary enforcement to maintain 
fiscal accountability and responsibility; to the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to 
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee has thirty days to report or be 
discharged.

                Legislation to Extend Budget Enforcement

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, to introduce legislation to 
extend budgetary enforcement and to maintain fiscal accountability and 
responsibility. this bill would ensure that the budget rules that 
govern the congressional budget process do not expire on April 15 of 
this year.
  On October 16 of last year, Senator Gregg and I joined with Senators 
Conrad and Domenici to offer an amendment to extend the budget process. 
The Senate agreed to our amendment, Senate amendment No. 4886 to S. 
Res. 304, but with a modification that limited the extension to April 
15. Thus the Senate must act before April 15 on legislation like that 
which Senator Gregg and I propose today, or we will risk allowing the 
Congress to legislate in an environment nearly completely unconstrained 
by budget discipline.
  The last 2 years have seen an unfortunate deterioration in the 
Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs--
balancing the Nation's fiscal books.
  In January of 2001, the Congressional budget Office projected that in 
the fiscal year that ended a few months ago on September 30, 2002, 
fiscal year 2002, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of 
$313 billion. In the actual event, however, the Government ran a 
unified budget deficit of $159 billion. That's a dramatic swing of $472 
billion--the disappearance of nearly half a trillion dollars--for that 
one year alone.
  And without counting Social Security, the Government ran a deficit of 
fully $318 billion in fiscal year 2002. Last year, the Government used 
$160 billion of income received by the Social Security trust fund to 
fund other Government programs.
  For the 4 years before this past year, the Government ran unified 
budget surpluses. The Government demonstrated that it can exercise 
fiscal restraint, if it chooses to.
  But now, CBO projects that under current policies, unified budget 
deficits will continue until 2006. And without counting Social 
Security, CBO projects that deficits will continue until 2011, when the 
hypothetical sunset of the tax cut brings us back to surplus again, 
just barely.
  And using more realistic assumptions of not sunsetting tax cuts just 
enacted and letting appropriations keep pace with inflation, CBO 
estimated last month in response to a request from Senator Voinovich 
and me that deficits will continue at least until 2009.
  We must stop running deficits because they cause the Government to 
use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other 
government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our 
nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.
  And we must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to 
the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to 
pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits. When the 
Government in this generation chooses to spend on current consumption 
and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does 
nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our 
choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with debts that they 
must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. And that is not 
right.
  That is why I am joining today with my colleague from New Hampshire 
to

[[Page 153]]

introduce this bill to extend the budget process. We need a strong 
budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline.
  Our bill would extend the budget process for 5 years, to October 1, 
2007.
  Specifically, it would extend the requirement that entitlement and 
tax legislation be paid for, or trigger automatic cuts--called 
``sequesters''--in entitlement programs if they are not. We would 
provide that these automatic cuts would not take place when the 
Government is running a surplus.
  Similarly, our bill would extend the pay-as-you-go rule in Senate 
procedures, as well, maintaining 60-vote points of order that enforce 
the pay-as-you-go rule. As we did in our amendment at the close of the 
last Congress, our bill would prevent savings achieved in 
reconciliation legislation from being used to offset new spending or 
tax cuts in other legislation. And to ensure that there is no loophole 
for entitlements enacted in appropriations measures, our bill would 
provide that entitlement expansions and tax cuts added to 
appropriations bills would be subjected to the pay-as-you-go rule, as 
well.
  Our bill would extend other Congressional Budget Act enforcement 
mechanisms, as well. All the provisions of the Congressional Budget Act 
that now require 60 votes to waive would remain in effect in the Senate 
through October 1, 2007.
  Finally, our bill would call for appropriations caps. It would state 
the sense of the Senate that Congress and the President should 
negotiate and agree on the appropriate discretionary spending levels 
and extend the statutory discretionary spending caps for 2003 and 
beyond as early as possible in a manner consistent with fiscal 
discipline and accountability.
  That is what our bill would do. It is a straightforward bill. it is 
the least that we should do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound 
budgeting.
  We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government 
programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We 
must continue the discipline of the budget process.
  Together with my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, I will work 
to those ends. I urge my colleagues to join us.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section-
by-section analysis of the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Gregg-Feingold Budget Process Law Extension--Section-by-Section 
                                Analysis


 extending the pay-as-you-go requirement and automatic cuts in statute

       Subsection 1(a)(1) extends the requirement that entitlement 
     and tax legislation be paid for, or cause automatic cuts 
     (called ``sequesters'') in entitlement programs.
       Subsection 1(a)(2) provides that these automatic cuts would 
     not take place when the government is running a surplus.
       Subsection 1(b) pushes back the expiration of the 
     mechanisms that cause the automatic cuts to October 1, 2007.


                    extending budget act enforcement

       Subsection 2(a) provides that the provisions of the 
     Congressional Budget Act that require 60 votes to waive 
     Budget Act points of order will remain in effect in the 
     Senate through October 1, 2007.


            extending the pay-as-you-go rule in senate rules

       Subsection 2(b) extends the pay-as-you-go rule in the 
     Senate.
       Subsection 2(b)(1)(A) prevents savings achieved in 
     reconciliation legislation from being used to offset new 
     spending or tax cuts in other legislation.
       Subsection 2(b)(1)(B) extends the existing pay-as-you-go 
     point of order (in section 207 of the fiscal year 2000 budget 
     resolution, H. Con. Res. 68 (106th Congress, 1st Session)) 
     through October 1, 2007.
       Subsection 2(b)(2) provides that entitlement expansions and 
     tax cuts added to appropriations bills shall be subjected to 
     the pay-as-you-go rule, just as if they were part of 
     freestanding entitlement or tax legislation.


                    calling for appropriations caps

       Section 3 states the sense of the Senate that Congress and 
     the President should negotiate and agree on the appropriate 
     discretionary spending levels and extend the statutory 
     discretionary spending caps for 2003 and beyond as early as 
     possible in a manner consistent with fiscal disciplines and 
     accountability.
                                 ______
                                 

                                 S. 90

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsections (a) and (b)(1), by striking ``enacted 
     before October 1, 2002,'' and inserting ``enacted before 
     October 1, 2007''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, there shall be no sequestration under this section for 
     any fiscal year in which a surplus exists (as measured in 
     conformance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act 
     of 1990).''.
       (b) Enforcement.--The second sentence of section 275(b) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is amended by striking ``2006'' and 
     inserting ``2007''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF BUDGET POINTS OF ORDER AND RULES IN THE 
                   SENATE.

       (a) Extension of Supermajority Enforcement.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall remain in effect for 
     purposes of Senate enforcement through October 1, 2007.
       (b) Pay-As-You-Go Rule in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--Section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68 (106th 
     Congress, 1st Session) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(6), by inserting after ``paragraph 
     (5)(A)'' the following: ``, except that direct spending or 
     revenue effects resulting in net deficit reduction enacted 
     pursuant to reconciliation instructions since the beginning 
     of that same calendar year shall not be available''; and
       (B) in subsection (g), by striking ``April 15, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``October 1, 2007''.
       (2) Application to Appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     enforcing this section, notwithstanding rule 3 of the Budget 
     Scorekeeping Guidelines set forth in the joint explanatory 
     statement of the committee of conference accompanying 
     Conference Report 105-217, during the consideration of any 
     appropriations Act, provisions of an amendment (other than an 
     amendment reported by the Committee on Appropriations 
     including routine and ongoing direct spending or receipts), a 
     motion, or a conference report thereon (only to the extent 
     that such provision was not committed to conference), that 
     would have been estimated as changing direct spending or 
     receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to 
     September 30, 2002) were they included in an Act other than 
     an appropriations Act shall be treated as direct spending or 
     receipts legislation, as appropriate, under section 207 of H. 
     Con. Res. 68 (106th Congress, 1st Session) as amended by this 
     section.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EXTENSION OF STATUTORY 
                   DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress and the 
     President should negotiate and agree on the appropriate 
     discretionary spending levels and extend the statutory 
     discretionary spending caps for 2003 and beyond as early as 
     possible during the 108th Congress in a manner consistent 
     with fiscal disciplines and accountability.
                                 ______
                                 

 By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Harkin):

  S. 91. A bill to amend title 9, United States Code, to provide for 
greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to livestock and 
poultry contracts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 
2003 would simply give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes 
associated with agricultural contracts. This legislation would not 
prohibit arbitration. Instead, it would ensure that the decision to 
arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided 
for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion.
  I certainly recognize that arbitration has its benefits. In certain 
cases, it can be less costly than other dispute settlement means. In 
certain other cases, it can remove some of the workload from our 
nation's overburdened court system. For these reasons, arbitration must 
be an option--but it should be no more than an option.
  Mandatory arbitration clauses are used in a growing number of 
agricultural contracts between individual farmers and processors. These 
provisions limit a farmer's ability to resolve a dispute with the 
company, even when a violation of Federal and State law is suspected. 
Rather than having the option to pursue a claim in court, disputes are 
required to go through an arbitration process that puts the farmer

[[Page 154]]

at a severe disadvantage. Such disputes often involve instances of 
discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. The effect of 
these violations for the individual farmer can be bankruptcy and 
financial ruin, and mandatory arbitration clauses make it impossible 
for farmers to seek redress in court.
  When a farmer chooses arbitration, the farmer is waving rights to 
access to the courts and the constitutional right to a jury trial. 
Certain standardized court rules are also waived, such as the right to 
discovery. This is important because the farmer must prove his case, 
the company has the relevant information, and the farmer can not 
prevail unless he can compel disclosure of relevant information.
  Examples of farmers' concerns that have gone unaddressed due to 
limitations on dispute resolution options include; mis-weighed animals, 
bad feed cases, wrongful termination of contracts, diseased swine or 
birds provided by the company, fraud and misrepresentation to induce a 
grower to enter a contract, and retaliation by companies against 
farmers who join producer associations.
  During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote 
of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment to give farmers a choice of 
venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts.
  During the last session of Congress, 66 Senators cosponsored S. 1140, 
the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001, 
to provide similar protection from mandatory arbitration clauses in 
franchise agreements between auto dealers and manufacturers. This 
legislation was enacted at the end of the last session. It is my hope 
that we will be able to move this legislation in an equally efficient 
fashion.
  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. 91

       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 ``Fair Contracts for Growers 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 17. Livestock and poultry contracts

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Livestock.--The term `livestock' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(2) Livestock or poultry contract.--The term `livestock 
     or poultry contract' means any growout contract, marketing 
     agreement, or other arrangement under which a livestock or 
     poultry grower raises and cares for livestock or poultry.
       ``(3) Livestock or poultry grower.--The term `livestock or 
     poultry grower' means any person engaged in the business of 
     raising and caring for livestock or poultry in accordance 
     with a livestock or poultry contract, whether the livestock 
     or poultry is owned by the person or by another person.
       ``(4) Poultry.--The term `poultry' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(b) Consent to Arbitration.--If a livestock or poultry 
     contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a 
     controversy under the livestock or poultry contract, 
     arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if, 
     after the controversy arises, both parties consent in writing 
     to use arbitration to settle the controversy.
       ``(c) Explanation of Basis for Awards.--If arbitration is 
     elected to settle a dispute under a livestock or poultry 
     contract, the arbitrator shall provide to the parties to the 
     contract a written explanation of the factual and legal basis 
     for the award.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``17. Livestock and poultry contracts.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to a contract 
     entered into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or 
     extended after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 97. A bill to treat certain hospital support organizations as 
qualified organizations for purposes of determining acquisition 
indebtedness; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would 
extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the 
existing debt-financed property rules that apply to tax-exempt 
educational organizations, pension funds, and investment consortia of 
qualified schools and funds.
  In a June 21, 2002, article, the New York Times describes the 
financial straits that nonprofit hospitals now face. More and more 
people in our weakened economy are seeking medical care from nonprofit 
hospitals. As a condition for Federal tax exemption, nonprofit 
hospitals must provide significant charitable services. Fees from other 
patients, especially in orthopedics, cardiology, and oncology, have in 
the past, allowed nonprofit hospitals to cover the expense of caring 
for the poor.
  For-profit entrepreneurs, however, are better positioned to win away 
these specialty care patients because they are not burdened by the same 
requirement to provide indigent care. Consequently, investors and 
lenders have readily funded for-profit health care ventures. This 
available capital allows profit-making companies to build the most up-
to-date facilities in competing for the high-margin patient.
  No doubt, for-profit operations do offer charity care, but their 
profit orientation limits the amount they will provide. For example, 
residency and fellowship programs to train our doctors are not 
profitable, and, therefore, as the New York Times points out, nearly 
all the postgraduate medical education in the United States is provided 
by the nonprofit hospitals.
  Of course, rising costs, such as for wages, supplies, and insurance, 
further compound the problem of nonprofit hospitals of stretching their 
income to cover significant charitable services. In addition, many of 
these nonprofit hospitals cannot raise or borrow the capital to 
modernize. They cover operating costs by postponing hospital 
maintenance and deferring the purchase of new technology, exacerbating 
an already bad situation. Eventually, as the New York Times article 
documents, more and more nonprofit hospitals will be forced to sell 
their facilities to for-profit enterprises.
  The Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu faces these very same 
financial difficulties. This 143-year-old nonprofit hospital system 
maintains the largest private, nonprofit hospital in my state. It is a 
teaching hospital that provides residency training in a number of 
areas, and it treated 18,000 inpatients and 200,000 outpatients in 
2001. With the only accredited trauma center in Hawaii, it served over 
40,000 individuals without regard to their ability to pay. Medicaid and 
Medicare patients comprise nearly 60 percent of all its admissions.
  In addition, the Center directly, or through its affiliates, operates 
community clinics throughout the state, conducts professional training 
programs, offers home health services, maintains a medical library, in 
addition to running a rural hospital on the rural, economically 
depressed Island of Molokai. Like other nonprofit hospitals, the Center 
provides significant charitable care, with nearly $23 million in 
uncompensated services in 2002.
  Further, like other nonprofit hospitals, it has grave problems 
raising the funds needed to support all these uncompensated services 
while at the same time renovating and expanding its treatment 
facilities. A recent report from the Healthcare Association of Hawaii 
estimated that the hospitals in my state, similar to hospitals 
nationwide, will face additional, major losses this year due to reduced 
reimbursements, higher costs, and greater demand for services.
  In the past, Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, 
universities, and pension funds to invest in real estate development so 
as to help meet these institutions' financial needs. Under the tax code 
these organizations can incur debt to develop their real estate 
holdings without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities. 
Our nonprofit teaching hospitals have equal if not more pressing needs

[[Page 155]]

and should have the same opportunity. Unless Congress wishes to assume 
responsibility for charitable health care, we must help our nonprofit 
hospitals, especially the teaching hospitals. My bill, which is 
identical to an amendment that the Senate had previously adopted during 
the debate of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2001, would allow support organizations for qualified nonprofit 
teaching hospital to engage in limited real estate activities. These 
nonprofit hospitals would thereby be able to supplement their 
investment income in order to meet the growing demand placed on them 
for more community service.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the New York 
Times article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 97

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN HOSPITAL SUPPORT 
                   ORGANIZATIONS AS QUALIFIED ORGANIZATIONS FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ACQUISITION 
                   INDEBTEDNESS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 514(c)(9) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to real property 
     acquired by a qualified organization) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at 
     the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:

       ``(iv) a qualified hospital support organization (as 
     defined in subparagraph (I)).''.

       (b) Qualified Hospital Support Organizations.--Paragraph 
     (9) of section 514(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) Qualified hospital support organizations.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (C)(iv), the term `qualified 
     hospital support organization' means, with respect to any 
     eligible indebtedness (including any qualified refinancing of 
     such eligible indebtedness), a support organization (as 
     defined in section 509(a)(3)) which supports a hospital 
     described in section 119(d)(4)(B) and with respect to which--

       ``(i) more than half of its assets (by value) at any time 
     since its organization--

       ``(I) were acquired, directly or indirectly, by 
     testamentary gift or devise, and
       ``(II) consisted of real property, and

       ``(ii) the fair market value of the organization's real 
     estate acquired, directly or indirectly, by gift or devise, 
     exceeded 25 percent of the fair market value of all 
     investment assets held by the organization immediately prior 
     to the time that the eligible indebtedness was incurred.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `eligible 
     indebtedness' means indebtedness secured by real property 
     acquired by the organization, directly or indirectly, by gift 
     or devise, the proceeds of which are used exclusively to 
     acquire any leasehold interest in such real property or for 
     improvements on, or repairs to, such real property. A 
     determination under clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph 
     shall be made each time such an eligible indebtedness (or the 
     qualified refinancing of such an eligible indebtedness) is 
     incurred. For purposes of this subparagraph, a refinancing of 
     such an eligible indebtedness shall be considered qualified 
     if such refinancing does not exceed the amount of the 
     refinanced eligible indebtedness immediately before the 
     refinancing.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to indebtedness incurred after December 31, 2003.
                                  ____


               [From the New Yorks Times, June 21, 2002]

             Demand, but No Capital, at Nonprofit Hospitals

                           (By Reed Abelson)

       As nonprofit hospitals around the country struggle with a 
     surprising growth in admissions, many are finding it 
     increasingly difficult to raise the money they need to meet 
     the new demands on them.
       The need for capital is becoming so intense that nonprofit 
     hospitals are selling facilities to their for-profit cousins, 
     which are better able to find money to operate them, or 
     starting joint ventures in which for-profit companies put up 
     cash to renovate a hospital or expand into a new area. Others 
     make do with outdated facilities and medical equipment, even 
     as for-profit hospitals invest in new technologies.
       Critics of for-profit hospitals have long raised concerns 
     about how those institutions operate, pointing to instances 
     when they have acquired nonprofits and then cut the staff or 
     reduced the amount of charity care being provided. Other 
     experts say there are no significant differences in those 
     areas, and many for-profit companies say they intend to 
     provide the same care to patients but with better facilities.
       Still, nonprofit hospitals, roughly 85 percent of all the 
     hospitals in the United States, provide nearly all the 
     postgraduate medical education, and if nonprofits continue to 
     struggle financially, many of them will be training doctors 
     in out-of-date facilities--or selling facilities to for-
     profit companies that may prove to have no interest in 
     operating residency and fellow-ship programs for doctors.
       ``The needs are higher than they have been in the past,'' 
     said Bruce Vladeck, a professor of health policy at the Mount 
     Sinai School of Medicine in New York. Without access to 
     enough capital, many nonprofit hospitals, he fears, will 
     focus only on projects that can demonstrate a financial 
     return, like a new cardiology center. ``It's harder and 
     harder to finance esoteric stuff that isn't profitable,'' he 
     said, as well as basic services like pediatrics.
       Higher labor costs, rising malpractice insurance premiums 
     and other expenses have all battered the nonprofits' 
     finances, even if some have benefited from the growing demand 
     for their services.
       Since the beginning of 2000, Moody's Investors Service has 
     downgraded 121 nonprofit hospitals, affecting $34 billion of 
     bonds, and upgraded only 38 with $7 billion in bonds. About 9 
     percent of Moody's nonprofit hospital portfolio is now 
     considered below investment grade, compared with 7 percent in 
     1999, and most hospitals are not even rated.
       ``We've got a majority of the nation's hospitals in serious 
     financial difficulty,'' said Carmela Coyle, a senior vice 
     president for the American Hospital Association.
       A number of hospitals, unable to make the kind of 
     investments needed, are taking dramatic steps:
       Catholic Health Initiatives, one of the nation's largest 
     nonprofit hospital chains, said in late May that it planned 
     to sell three hospitals in Albuquerque to Ardent Health 
     Services, a for-profit company that will invest at least $40 
     million in them.
       Memorial Hospital of Salem County agreed last November to 
     be bought by Community Health Systems, another for-profit 
     company. If the deal receives regulatory approval, Memorial 
     will become New Jersey's only for-profit acute-care hospital. 
     While Community Health has said it will invest $30 million in 
     the hospital, advocacy groups like New Jersey Citizen Action 
     have raised concerns about the change of the hospital's 
     status and its possible impact on charity care. Community 
     Health says it is committed to providing the same levels of 
     charity care as Memorial.
       In Fairmont, W. Va., the operations of the community 
     hospital are being turned over to Triad Hospitals, a for-
     profit company that has promised to spend $75 million to 
     build a new hospital.
       The flurry of deals is beginning to echo the situation in 
     the mid-1990's, when for-profit chains gobbled up many 
     nonprofit hospitals. ``There are several signs that 
     acquisition activity is heating up in the hospital sector,'' 
     said Nancy Weaver, an analyst for Stephens Inc.
       Many for-profit companies are flush with cash from growing 
     profits, a result of higher reimbursements, and surging stock 
     prices. These companies can readily find the money to invest, 
     sometimes by selling more stock or issuing corporate bonds.
       ``There is no question that this does put the nonprofits at 
     a disadvantage,'' said Stuart H. Altman, a professor of 
     national health policy at Brandeis University.
       HCA, for example, which was struggling to overcome huge 
     legal problems and overly aggressive expansion just a few 
     years ago, is planning $1.6 billion in capital spending this 
     year and plans to open a new hospital in Denver at a cost of 
     $147 million this year. Triad expects to make capital 
     investments worth roughly $350 million this year at 47 
     hospitals in 16 states.
       In some cases, for-profit hospitals are buying troubled 
     institutions that have been poorly managed for years. In 
     addition to much-needed capital, the new owners may bring in 
     stronger management and improved business practices.
       In other instances, the prospects of better access to 
     capital is leading some nonprofit hospitals to seek out joint 
     ventures with for-profit companies.
       ``We're seeing a lot of partnerships going on,'' said Ms. 
     Weaver, including for-profit companies providing capital to 
     build surgical centers in partnership with nonprofits. ``It's 
     an evolving model that is coming about because of the capital 
     issue.''
       Triad says it is in discussions with numerous nonprofit 
     hospitals about a variety of arrangements, including joint 
     ventures. Many hospitals ``are looking for ways to raise 
     money or access capital to remain competitive,'' said James 
     D. Shelton, Triad's chairman and chief executive. ``We're 
     probably seeing more of this in the last year than in the 
     last five to six years.''
       The alternatives to deals with for-profit companies are 
     few. In Louisiana, Slidell Memorial Hospital will be asking 
     voters to approve a new tax that would generate revenue to 
     pay off the $85 million it needs to borrow for renovations 
     and equipment, according to B. Clement, associate 
     administrator for business development at the hospital. 
     Slidell's board has considered selling the institution, but 
     would prefer it to remain nonprofit.
       A few nonprofit hospitals with solid credit ratings are 
     still borrowing money with relative ease. Early this year, 
     for example, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center of

[[Page 156]]

     New York issued $450 million in bonds. Memorial expects to 
     use some of the money to build new facilities.
       But even the nonprofits with finances are being more 
     conservative in how they spend their money. ``We're very 
     conscious of how much debt we have on our books,'' Jerry 
     Judd, vice president for treasury services for Catholic 
     Health.
       That hospital system plans to spend about $500 million on 
     capital improvements this year, but that may not cover the 
     necessary investment in its Albuquerque hospitals. * * * 
     Health Services, a for-profit company, expects to take over 
     those details some time later this year.
       Some analysts say the tough market environment is providing 
     needed discipline. James C. * * *, a professor of health 
     policy administration at the University California at 
     Berkeley, said many nonprofit hospitals have expanded into 
     areas like managed or physician practices that proved to be 
     disastrous strategies decisions.
       ``There have been too many adventures.'' he said.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Burns, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. 
        Corzine):
  S. 98. A bill to amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, and the 
Revised Statutes of the United States, to prohibit financial holding 
companies and national banks from engaging, directly or indirectly, in 
real estate brokerage or real estate management activities, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments 
about legislation I am introducing today. I also will talk briefly 
about some of the agenda items I have been looking at for this year. 
Obviously, having just been sworn into office today, we are putting 
together our agendas and beginning to think seriously about what kind 
of issues we would like to put forward.
  The people of Colorado understand that, as we move into this session, 
my priority is the cleanup of a number of our Superfund sites in 
Colorado, staying on track with the cleanup of Rocky Flats by 2006, 
cleaning up the Shattuck waste site, as well as the cleanup of Pueblo 
Depot.
  I will also be working on transportation issues which are important 
to States such as Colorado, Wyoming, the home State of the presiding 
officer, as well as throughout the country. Transportation will be a 
big issue as we move into this session.
  Another issue I have spoken about is housing, which we will be 
dealing with in this session. I also plan to focus on missile defense 
and judiciary nominations.
  The legislation I rise today to introduce is called the Community 
Choice In Real Estate Act of 2003. I am pleased to have Senators 
Clinton, Shelby, Feingold, Burns, Sessions, and Harkin join me in 
introducing this bill. This is something I am doing as part of the 
effort to keep the housing markets competitive and strong.
  The Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003 is the continuation 
of an effort that I began in the 107th Congress. This bill would 
clarify Congressional intent that real estate brokerage and management 
are not financial activities and would therefore retain the separation 
of commerce and banking that we intended during consideration of the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
  The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act closed the unitary thrift loophole that 
allowed a single savings and loan to be owned by a commercial entity. 
This clearly established that banking and commerce were not to mix. 
Congress explicitly defined several functions to be financial in nature 
or incidental to finance to clarify the separation. Real estate 
management and brokerage services were not defined as financial 
activities.
  Congress already established a clear position regarding banks' 
involvement in real estate management and brokerage activities, and the 
bill I'm introducing with my colleagues would reiterate that 
prohibition. I believe that we should not permit federal regulators to 
preempt the intent of Congress.
  The real estate and banking industries have served America well, and 
I believe that the current system provides consumers with many 
important options. I know that the regulators received many letters 
during the comment period. I commend them for taking the time to allow 
all interested parties to comment and for their pledge to carefully 
review all comments. I intend to continue to work with them to ensure 
that Congressional intent is followed in this matter.
  Realtors play a vital role in our economy, and housing has been one 
of the bright spots in our otherwise slow economy. Realtors are an 
integral part of the housing industry share in the credit for this 
positive economic news.
  Additionally, Realtors help fuel the economy as small businesses. As 
a small businessman myself, I can appreciate the challenges of starting 
and running a small business. As a U.S. Senator I have worked hard to 
reduce rules and regulations hindering small businesses, as well as 
excessive taxes. The Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003 will 
ensure that small real estate businesses are able to continue to 
thrive.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to promptly consider this matter, 
and I would 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. 98

       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 ``Community Choice in Real 
     Estate Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION THAT REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE AND 
                   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ARE NOT BANKING OR 
                   FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.--Section 4(k) of the 
     Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Real estate brokerage and real estate management 
     activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Board may not determine that real 
     estate brokerage activity or real estate management activity 
     is an activity that is financial in nature, is incidental to 
     any financial activity, or is complementary to a financial 
     activity.
       ``(B) Real estate brokerage activity defined.--For purposes 
     of this paragraph, the term `real estate brokerage activity' 
     means any activity that involves offering or providing real 
     estate brokerage services to the public, including--
       ``(i) acting as an agent for a buyer, seller, lessor, or 
     lessee of real property;
       ``(ii) listing or advertising real property for sale, 
     purchase, lease, rental, or exchange;
       ``(iii) providing advice in connection with sale, purchase, 
     lease, rental, or exchange of real property;
       ``(iv) bringing together parties interested in the sale, 
     purchase, lease, rental, or exchange of real property;
       ``(v) negotiating, on behalf of any party, any portion of a 
     contract relating to the sale, purchase, lease, rental, or 
     exchange of real property (other than in connection with 
     providing financing with respect to any such transaction);
       ``(vi) engaging in any activity for which a person engaged 
     in the activity is required to be registered or licensed as a 
     real estate agent or broker under any applicable law; and
       ``(vii) offering to engage in any activity, or act in any 
     capacity, described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), or 
     (vi).
       ``(C) Real estate management activity defined.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `real estate management 
     activity' means any activity that involves offering or 
     providing real estate management services to the public, 
     including--
       ``(i) procuring any tenant or lessee for any real property;
       ``(ii) negotiating leases of real property;
       ``(iii) maintaining security deposits on behalf of any 
     tenant or lessor of real property (other than as a depository 
     institution for any person providing real estate management 
     services for any tenant or lessor of real property);
       ``(iv) billing and collecting rental payments with respect 
     to real property or providing periodic accounting for such 
     payments;
       ``(v) making principal, interest, insurance, tax, or 
     utility payments with respect to real property (other than as 
     a depository institution or other financial institution on 
     behalf of, and at the direction of, an account holder at the 
     institution);
       ``(vi) overseeing the inspection, maintenance, and upkeep 
     of real property, generally; and
       ``(vii) offering to engage in any activity, or act in any 
     capacity, described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), or 
     (vi).
       ``(D) Exception for company property.--This paragraph does 
     not apply to an activity of a bank holding company or any 
     affiliate of

[[Page 157]]

     such company that directly relates to managing any real 
     property owned by such company or affiliate, or the purchase, 
     sale, or lease of property owned, or to be used or occupied, 
     by such company or affiliate.''.
       (b) Revised Statutes of the United States.--Section 
     5136A(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 
     U.S.C. 24a(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Real estate brokerage and real estate management 
     activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may not determine that 
     real estate brokerage activity or real estate management 
     activity is an activity that is financial in nature, is 
     incidental to any financial activity, or is complementary to 
     a financial activity.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     terms `real estate brokerage activity' and `real estate 
     management activity' have the same meanings as in section 
     4(k)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
       ``(C) Exception for company property.--This paragraph does 
     not apply to an activity of a national bank, or a subsidiary 
     of a national bank, that directly relates to managing any 
     real property owned by such bank or subsidiary, or the 
     purchase, sale, or lease of property owned, or to be owned, 
     by such bank or subsidiary.''.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Allard from Colorado, today to introduce the Community Choice 
in Real Estate Act of 2003.
  This critically important piece of legislation would clarify 
Congressional intent, by preventing the Federal Reserve Board and the 
Treasury Department from issuing a regulation permitting banks and 
their affiliates from engaging in real estate management and brokerage 
activities, which are commercial--and not financial--in nature.
  The legislation that Senator Allard and I are introducing today 
recognizes the possible unintended consequences that implementation of 
such regulation could have on consumers and on the real estate 
industry. The powers afforded banks under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act 
would give banks a considerable competitive advantage over brokers and 
service providers who lack access to customer financial information. I 
am concerned that this could force independent real estate brokers out 
of the market, and in turn lower the quality of service to consumers.
  Congress has armed regulators with the flexibility to adapt to 
changes in the marketplace. Indeed, in the coming years, I am confident 
the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department will determine 
the effect that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is having on the financial 
market place and on consumers. As the effects are analyzed and changes 
considered, I urge that safeguards be included that ensure the 
protection of consumers and existing businesses as well as compliance 
with the intent of Congress. Until then, allowing banks in real estate 
could create inherent conflicts of interest for the lenders and 
brokers, and could place inevitable pressure on consumers and limit 
their choices in products and services.
  Last year, there was tremendous support for this legislation in the 
House and Senate, and I look forward to working with my colleagues 
again this year to ensure the Treasury Secretary hears loud and clear 
the intent of Congress to protect consumers, and to protect an industry 
from being put at a competitive disadvantage through executive action.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 100. A bill to expand access to affordable health care and to 
strengthen the health care safety net and make health care services 
more available in rural and underserved areas; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to 
Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive, seven-point plan that 
builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private 
health care system to make quality, affordable health care available to 
millions more Americans.
  One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to 
affordable health care for all Americans. There are still far too many 
Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate 
coverage. More than 41 million Americans do not have health care 
coverage, including more than 150,000 in Maine.
  Health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people with health 
insurance are healthier than those who are uninsured. People without 
health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it, and to 
forgo services such as periodic check-ups and preventive services. As a 
consequence, they are more likely to be hospitalized or require costly 
medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or 
treated at a curable stage. Not only does this put the health of these 
individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on 
our hospitals and emergency rooms, many of them already financially 
challenged.
  Compared with people who have health coverage, uninsured adults are 
four times, and uninsured children five times, more likely to use the 
emergency rooms. The costs of care for these individuals are often 
absorbed by providers and passed on to the covered population through 
increased fees and insurance premiums.
  Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with 
insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a 
self-employed fisherman, the owner of a struggling small businesses, or 
the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of 
health insurance is a common concern.
  Maine's employers are currently facing premium increases of as much 
as 40 percent a year. These premium increases have been particularly 
burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. 
Many small business owners are caught in a cost squeeze: they know that 
if they pass on the premium increases to their employees, more of them 
will decline coverage. Yet, these small businesses simply cannot afford 
to absorb double-digit increases of 20, 30 or 40 percent, year after 
year.
  The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and 
families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly 
insurance premiums often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, 
we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable.
  The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing 
today, it a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and 
private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable 
and available. The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access 
to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health 
insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing 
coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net 
for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and 
underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term 
care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more 
equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare 
shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers 
to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which, 
in turn drives up health care premiums.
  Let me discuss each of these seven points in more detail.
  First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising 
health care costs.
  Since most Americans get their health insurance through the 
workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health 
insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured 
Americans are members of families with at least one full- time worker. 
As many as 82 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are 
in a family with a worker.
  Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small 
businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed 
by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health 
insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer 
coverage. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their 
employees, but the cost is often just too high.
  The legislation we are introducing today will help small employers 
cope

[[Page 158]]

with rising costs, by providing new tax credits for small businesses to 
help make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those 
small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so 
and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage 
for their employees even in the face of rising costs.
  Our legislation will also help increase the clout of small businesses 
in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small 
businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large 
companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They 
also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees 
among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. 
Moreover, they are not as able to spread the risks of medical claims 
over as many employees as large firms.
  Our legislation will help address these problems by authorizing 
federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them 
with the planning, development, and operation of small employer 
purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will help to reduce health 
care costs for small employers by allowing them to band together to 
purchase health insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a 
number of advantages for small employers. For example, the increased 
numbers of participants in the group help to lower the premium costs 
for all. Moreover, they decrease the risk of adverse selection and 
spread the cost of health care over a broader group.
  The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration 
grant program for States, local governments and non-profit 
organizations to provide information about the benefits of health 
insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased 
productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would 
also be used to make employers aware of their current rights under 
State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small 
employers are not fully aware of the laws that have already been 
enacted by both States and the Federal Government to make health 
insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of 
small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of 
their health insurance premiums as a business expense.
  The legislation would also create a new program to encourage 
innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 states 
conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group 
purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market 
reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. 
The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be 
encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as 
models for the nation.
  The Access of Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to 
affordable health are for individuals and families.
  One of the first bills I cosponsored as a Senator was legislation to 
establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, which 
provides insurance for the children of low-income parents who cannot 
afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for 
Medicaid. This important program has provided affordable health 
insurance coverage to over four million children nationwide, including 
over 12,000 who are currently enrolled in the MaineCare program. Even 
so, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of qualified children have yet to 
be enrolled in this program, many because their parents simply don't 
know that they are eligible for the assistance.
  Our legislation builds on the success of this program and gives 
States a number of new tools to increase participation. For example, 
the bill gives States the option of covering the parents of the 
children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also 
use funds provided through this program to help eligible working 
families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In 
short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives 
the health care they need.
  The legislation will also allow States to expand coverage to eligible 
legal immigrants through Medicaid and SCHIP. Maine is one of a number 
of states that is currently covering eligible legal immigrant pregnant 
women and children under Medicaid using 100 percent state dollars. 
Giving States the option of covering these children and families under 
Medicaid will enable them to receive matching federal funds, and will 
help relieve the pressure that most a State budgets are currently 
experiencing due to the economic downturn and rising Medicaid costs.
  Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in 
finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this 
problem, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act authorizes Federal 
grants to provide money for states to create high-risk pools through 
which individuals who have pre-existing health conditions can obtain 
affordable health can obtain affordable health insurance.
  And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and 
middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer-
provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public 
programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax 
credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to 
$3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage 
for up to 6 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one 
or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families 
who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no 
government help.
  The Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will also help to 
strengthen our nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over 
five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes 
community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These 
centers, which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, 
provide critical primaary care services to millions of Americans 
regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients 
treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage 
and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical 
part of our Nation's health care safety net.
  The problem of access to affordable health care services is not 
limited to the uninsured, but it also shared by many Americans living 
in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of 
health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act 
therefore includes a number of provisions to strengthen the National 
Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other 
clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas.
  For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial 
incentive to participate in the National Health Services Corps and 
provide health care services in underserved communities. The tax bill 
passed by the last Congress provided a tax deduction for National 
Health Service Corps scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees 
and related educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction 
did not extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment 
amounts are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment 
program are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover 
their tax liability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes 
much more sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place.
  In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps 
participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current 
law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve 
full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough 
volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some 
sites may not need a particular type of provider, for example, a 
dentist, on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part-
time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment 
and retention. Our bill will therefore give the

[[Page 159]]

program additional flexibility to meet community needs.
  Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by 
older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the 
aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that 
Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the 
costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or 
cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too 
many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are 
confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent 
or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that 
they will have to cover the costs themselves.
  The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit 
for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to 
those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It 
will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term 
care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private 
long-term care insurance.
  Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted 
author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of 
medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our 
most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy 
behaviors, smoking, lack of regular exercise and poor diet. These three 
major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth 
highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: 
cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. 
These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the 
health care problems in Maine.
  Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to 
promote health lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows 
that these kinds of investments in health promotion and prevention 
offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life 
and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to 
States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite 
wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a 
grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' 
such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote 
healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community 
organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or 
expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, 
physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, 
healthy food service selections and programs that promote a healthy and 
safe school environment.
  And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote 
equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system 
rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high-
quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled 
citizens.
  According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the 
quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 
11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare 
spending.
  The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize 
higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not 
fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to 
favor urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural states 
into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result 
of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In 
the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify 
lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only 
served to widen the gap between low and high-cost states.
  As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians and other providers 
have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to 
shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The 
Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the 
highest health insurance premiums in the nation. The provisions in the 
Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to 
legislation that I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Russ 
Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians 
and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic 
adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas.
  The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for 
reform based upon principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority 
in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the 
goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more 
Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care 
safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the Medicare system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 101. A bill to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and 
judges of the United States for fiscal year 2003; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on this first day of the 108th Congress, I 
rise to address the serious matter of pay inequity in the Federal 
judiciary.
  As things stand now, nearly every Federal employee will receive a 
cost of living adjustment during 2003, every employee, that is, except 
Federal judges. This is because of a legislative prescription that 
requires Congress to authorize raises in the salaries of Federal 
judges. Although this COLA of roughly three percent may seem small and 
inconsequential, it makes a significant difference in light of the fact 
that Federal judges earn far less than many, it not most, of their 
counterparts in the private sector.
  In this 2002 year-end report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William 
Rehnquist highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have 
not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. 
He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the 
judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might 
force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the 
bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for 
life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, 
and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the 
private sector.'' The Chief Justice lamented, ``Unless the 108th 
Congress acts, judges will not even receive the cost-of-living 
adjustment that nearly every other federal employee will receive during 
2003.'' He concluded by urging Congress and the President to ``take up 
this issue early in the new year.''
  Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing a bill that will allow 
Federal judges to receive the COLA that other Federal employees are 
already slated to receive this year. Although the larger issue of 
minimizing the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector 
salaries still remains, this small step will resolve the salary 
inequity between Federal judges and other Federal employees. I urge my 
colleagues to join Senator Leahy and me in supporting this bipartisan 
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. 101

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR FEDERAL 
                   JUSTICES AND JUDGES.

       Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, Justices and 
     judges of the United States are authorized during fiscal year 
     2003 to receive a salary adjustment in accordance with 
     section 461 of title 28, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES:
  S. 103. A bill for the relief of Lindita Idrizi Heath; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.

[[Page 160]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 103

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LINDITA IDRIZI 
                   HEATH.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 101(b)(1) and 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be eligible for 
     issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
     upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 
     under section 204 of that Act or for adjustment of status to 
     lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Lindita Idrizi Heath enters 
     the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be considered to 
     have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 
     eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
     245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 
     adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Lindita Idrizi 
     Heath, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by one, during the current or next 
     following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
     that are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Lindita Idrizi Heath under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of birth of Lindita Idrizi Heath under section 202(e) 
     of that Act.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP.

       For purposes of section 320 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431; relating to the automatic 
     acquisition of citizenship by certain children born outside 
     the United States), Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be considered 
     to have satisfied the requirements applicable to adopted 
     children under section 101(b)(1) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(b)(1)).

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION.

       No natural parent, brother, or sister, if any, of Lindita 
     Idrizi Heath shall, by virtue of such relationship, be 
     accorded any right, privilege, or status under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Burns, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Miller, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Specter, and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 104. A bill to establish a national rail passenger transportation 
system, reauthorize Amtrak, improve security and service on Amtrak, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Defense Rail Act. This legislation is of vital importance to rail 
transportation, it provides funding for railroad security, Amtrak, 
investment in both freight and passenger rail, and the development of 
high speed corridors throughout the country.
  We have modified the security provision to reflect the creation of 
the Department of Homeland Security, otherwise, this is the same bill 
that the Commerce Committee reported last April by a vote of 20 to 3. I 
am joined by twenty five of my colleagues in introducing this 
bipartisan legislation. It is critical that the Senate take this bill 
up, and pass it, to ensure that our railroads are secure and we have 
adequate investment in both Amtrak and the development of high speed 
rail corridors to move us into the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Leahy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Sarbanes, 
        Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 105. A bill to repeal certain provisions of the Homeland Security 
Act (Public Law 107-296) relating to liability with respect to certain 
vaccines; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to keep a promise I made in 
November. On this, the very first day of the 108th Congress, I am 
introducing a bill that will remove the controversial vaccine component 
liability provisions from the Homeland Security bill.
  I am joined by a long list of original cosponsors: Senators Daschle, 
Boxer, Levin, Leahy, Landrieu, Dodd, Dayton, Sarbanes, Dorgan, Durbin, 
Lautenberg, and Feinstein. The Homeland Security bill, signed into law 
by President Bush in December, contains a provision that protects that 
financial security of pharmaceutical companies, not the homeland 
security of our Nation.
  The newly minted law contains a provision that expands the liability 
projections that currently exist for vaccines to include other vaccine 
components, such as vaccine preservates like Thimerosal. This provision 
was included in the bill, at the last minute, with no debate and no 
committee hearings
  Thimerosal; was the subject of several class action lawsuits based on 
increasing research connecting this preservative, which contains 
mercury, to the rising incidence of autism in children.
  Now that the vaccine component provision has been signed into law, 
all of these cases are expected to be dismissed. I urge my colleagues 
to join me and to remove the component provision from the law before it 
is too late. If these cases are dismissed with prejudice, then many 
families will have nowhere to go to see justice for the harm their 
children suffered.
  While the research is not conclusive on the connection between 
Thimerosal and autism, was this narrowly written, unrelated provision 
in the Homeland Security law the way to respond to these concerns? 
Don't these children and their families merit the full protection under 
the law? Certainly, they deserve their day in court. The Homeland 
Security provision includes vaccine components in the National Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program, VICP, in which awards are limited to money 
available through its special trust fund.
  In 1988, Congress enacted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 
Program as a no-fault alternative to the tort system for resolving 
claims resulting from adverse reactions to mandated childhood vaccines. 
This Federal no fault system is designed to compensate individuals, or 
families of individuals, who have been injured by childhood vaccines.
  Damages are awarded out of a trust fund that is financed by excise 
taxes of 75 cents per dose imposed on each vaccine covered under the 
program. There is a three year statute of limitations on bringing cases 
to the VICP. It is very likely that many families who joined the 
Thimerosal class action suits, now under the treat of dismissal, have 
exceeded the three year time limit. Therefore, these families will have 
no recourse whatsoever.
  An issue as serious as revising the Vaccine Injury Compensation 
Program certainly merits due Congressional process. Amending this 
program by including a provision in the Homeland Security bill was 
inappropriate and this serious mistake should be corrected. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill and working to see it 
signed into law as soon as possible. We must remove the vaccine 
component liability provisions from the Homeland Security law.
  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. 105

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN VACCINE LIABILITY PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-296) is amended--
       (1) by repealing sections 1714, 1715, 1716, and 1717; and

[[Page 161]]

       (2) in the table of contents, by striking the items 
     relating to sections 1714, 1715, 1716, and 1717.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect as 
     though enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296).

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak as a cosponsor of S. 105. 
This bill repeals provisions of the Homeland Security Act offering 
certain liability protections to pharmaceutical companies.
  Mr. President, these provisions protect the manufacturers of a 
vaccine additive called thimerosal. This additive is a mercury-based 
vaccine component. It was used extensively in the past, until some 
parents began to claim that it caused autism in their children.
  Those parents are now seeking their day in court against the 
manufacturers of the drug. And the effect of the provisions in the 
Homeland Security Bill is to steer claims away from the courts and to 
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
  I do not know whether the scientific evidence will ultimately support 
the parents' claim that their children's autism was caused by 
thimerosal. Right now, the research on the link between thimerosal and 
autism is inconclusive. But I do know that the manner in which these 
particular provisions were added to the Homeland Security law is just 
plain wrong.
  These provisions were at last-minute addition to the version of the 
Homeland Security Act that was passed in the House of Representatives. 
And like many things done at the last minute, without the benefit of 
thoughtful debate, these provisions were poorly conceived.
  The Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, Dan Burton, 
expressed his concern about these provisions in a letter to his 
colleagues. He noted that the scientific debate about thimersoal was 
unresolved. And he argued that some parents of autistic children might 
lose all legal recourse if the provisions passed, because the Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program has a narrow 3-year statute of limitations, 
and some parents may not have filed petitions on time. Chairman Burton 
pleaded with his colleagues not to ``stampede'' into cutting of the 
legal rights of these children ``without hearings and a full public 
debate.''
  Despite these pleadings, the provision remained in the House version 
of the Homeland Security Act.
  When the bill came to the U.S. Senate for consideration, many 
Members--on both sides of the aisle--expressed concern at the way that 
the provisions had been introduced. They argued that the provisions did 
not belong in the Homeland Security Act, and should be considered at 
some later time.
  Senators Daschle and Lieberman moved to strike these provisions from 
the Homeland Security legislation. In the hours before the vote, it 
appeared that the thimerosal language would indeed be struck--until the 
Republican leadership reportedly gave some Members assurances that the 
provisions would be struck in the next Congress. Unfortunately, enough 
Members accepted these assurances that the thimerosal provisions 
remained in the Homeland Security Act.
  Once the bill was signed into law, and the public became increasingly 
aware of what had happened, an interesting thing happened: No one would 
admit authorship of the provisions. The House majority leader's office 
initially claimed that it had been the White House's idea.
  The White House said that it had nothing to do with it. And the 
companies that were the beneficiaries of the provisions said that they 
were as surprised as anybody.
  So the public was left to ask: Who did this?
  This is not the way that Congress should legislate. What happened in 
this instance is deplorable, and it undermines public confidence in our 
legislative process.
  If there are good, legitimate reasons to give liability protection to 
the makers of thimerosal, let us have a thoughtful debate about them. 
Let us have hearings. I understand that the new majority leader, 
Senator Frist, has been working on legislation for some time in this 
regard. Senator Frist now controls the floor, and can ensure a prompt, 
thoughtful debate about reforms to the Vaccine Injury Compensation 
Program.
  In the meantime, let us strip the thimerosal provisions currently in 
the Homeland Security Act.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S.J. Res. 1. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime 
victims; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Crime Victims' Rights 
Amendment.
  The scales of justice are imbalanced. The U.S. Constitution, mainly 
through amendments, grants those accused of crime many constitutional 
rights, such as a speedy trial, a jury trial, counsel, the right 
against self-incrimination, the right to be free from unreasonable 
searches and seizures, the right to subpoena witnesses, the right to 
confront witnesses, and the right to due process under the law.
  The Constitution, however, guarantees no rights to crime victims. For 
example, victims have no right to be present, no right to be informed 
of hearings, no right to be heard at sentencing or at a parole hearing, 
no right to insist on reasonable conditions of release to protect the 
victim, no right to restitution, no right to challenge unending delays 
in the disposition of their case, and no right to be told if they might 
be in danger from release or escape of their attacker. This lack of 
rights for crime victims has caused many victims and their families to 
suffer twice, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands 
of a justice system that fails to protect them. The Crime Victims' 
Rights Amendment would bring balance to the judicial system by giving 
victims of violent crime the rights to be informed, present, and heard 
at critical stages throughout their ordeal.
  The amendment gives victims of violent crime the right: to reasonable 
and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime and of 
any release or escape of the accused; not to be excluded from such 
public proceeding; reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, 
sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and to adjudicative 
decisions that duly consider the victim's safety, interest in avoiding 
unreasonable delay, and just and timely claims to restitution from the 
offender.
  These rights have been at the core of the amendment since 1996, when 
Senator Feinstein and I first introduced the Crime Victims' Rights 
Amendment. The amendment is the product of extended discussions with 
the White House, the Department of Justice, Representative Steve 
Chabot, Senators Hatch and Biden, law enforcement officials, major 
victims' rights groups, and such diverse scholars as Professor Larry 
Tribe and then-Professor Paul Cassell. The current version is similar 
to the version in the 107th Congress. As President Bush stated when an-
nouncing his support for the language of the amendment, the amendment 
was ``written with care, and strikes 
a proper balance.'' http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/
20020416-1.html. One of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, 
Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who is on the opposite end of the 
ideological spectrum from President Bush, concurred. Professor Tribe 
praised the Amendment's ``brevity and clarity'' and commented, ``That 
you achieved such conciseness while fully protecting defendants' rights 
and accommodating the legitimate concerns that have been voiced about 
prosecutorial power and presidential authority is no mean feat. . . . I 
think you have done a splendid job at distilling the prior versions of 
the Victims' Rights Amendment into a form that would be worthy of a 
constitutional amendment.'' Letter of April 15, 2002.
  If reform is to be meaningful, it must be in the U.S. Constitution. 
Since 1982, when the need for a constitutional amendment was first 
recognized by

[[Page 162]]

President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime, 32 states have 
passed similar measures, by an average popular vote of about 80 
percent. These state measures have helped protect crime victims; but 
they are inadequate for two reasons. First, each amendment is 
different, and not all States have provided protection to victims; a 
Federal amendment would establish a basic floor of crime victims' 
rights for all Americans, just as the federal Constitution provides for 
the accused. Second, statutory and state constitutional provisions are 
always subservient to the federal constitution; so, in cases of 
conflict, the defendants' rights, which are already in the U.S. 
Constitution, will always prevail. The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment 
would correct this imbalance.
  It is important to note that the number one recommendation in a 400 
page report by the Department of Justice on victims rights and services 
was that ``the U.S. Constitution should be amended to guarantee 
fundamental rights for victims of crime.'' U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office for Victims of Crime, New Directions from the Field: Victims' 
Rights and Services for the 21st Century 9, 1998. The report continued: 
``A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure 
strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims' rights 
laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the 
state and federal levels.'' Id. at 10. Further: ``Granting victims of 
crime the ability to participate in the justice system is exactly the 
type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to protect and 
has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include the right 
to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the government 
deprives one of life, liberty, or property.'' Id.
  Some may say, ``I'm all for victims' rights but they don't need to be 
in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is too hard to change.'' But 
the history of our country teaches us that constitutional protections 
are needed to protect the basic rights of the people. Our criminal 
justice system needs the kind of fundamental reform that can only be 
accomplished through changes in our fundamental law, the Constitution. 
Attempts to establish rights by Federal or State statute, or even State 
constitutional amendment, have proven inadequate, after more than 
twenty years of trying. Then-Attorney General Reno has confirmed the 
point, noting that, ``unless the Constitution is amended to ensure 
basic rights to crime victims, we will never correct the existing 
imbalance in this country between defendants' constitutional rights and 
the haphazard patchwork of victims' rights.'' Senate Judiciary 
Committee Hearing, April 16, 1997, statement of Attorney General Janet 
Reno, at 41.
  On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ray Fisher, then Associate 
Attorney General, now a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
testified that ``the state legislative route to change has proven less 
than adequate in according victims their rights. Rather than form a 
minimum baseline of protections, the state provisions have produced a 
hodgepodge of rights that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 
Rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution will receive greater 
recognition and respect, and will provide a national baseline.'' Senate 
Judiciary Committee Hearing, April 28, 1998, statement of Associate 
Attorney General Ray Fisher, at 9.
  A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. 
Harvard Professor of Law Laurence Tribe has explained that the existing 
statutes and state amendments ``are likely, as experience to date sadly 
shows, to provide too little real protection whenever they come into 
conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, sheer 
inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights regardless of whether 
those rights are genuinely threatened.'' Senate Judiciary Committee 
Hearing, March 24, 1999, statement of Laurence Tribe, at 6. He also 
stated, ``there appears to be a considerable body of evidence showing 
that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules exist to 
protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often tend to 
be honored in the breach . . . .'' Id. at 7. Indeed, according to a 
report by the National Institute of Justice, even in states that gave 
``strong protection'' to victims rights, fewer than 60 percent of the 
victims were notified of the sentencing hearing and fewer than 40 
percent were notified of the pretrial release of the defendant. 
National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief, ``The Rights of Crime 
Victims--Does Legal Protection Make a Difference?'' at 4 (Dec. 1998).
  If crime victims are to have meaningful rights, those rights must be 
in the U.S. Constitution. As President Bush has stated, ``The 
protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when 
amending the Constitution is the right thing to do. And . . . the Crime 
Victims' Rights Amendment is the right way to do it.'' http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html.
  The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment has strong bipartisan support in 
the House and Senate. Senator Feinstein is the lead Democratic sponsor. 
I would like to thank her for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime 
victims and for her hard and very valuable work on the language. Also, 
a bipartisan group of 39 State Attorneys General has signed a letter 
expressing their ``strong and unequivocal support'' for an amendment. 
In January 1997, the National Governors' Association voted in favor of 
an amendment. In 1996 and 2000, both the Republican and Democratic 
Party Platforms called for a crime victims' rights amendment. 
Additionally, the amendment is supported by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and major national victims' rights 
groups, including Parents of Murdered Children, the National 
Organization for Victim Assistance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 
MADD, the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Arizona Voice for 
Crime Victims, Crime Victims United, and, Memory of Victims Everywhere.
  The amendment has received strong support around the country. As I 
mentioned earlier, 32 states have passed similar measures--by an 
average popular vote of almost 80 percent.
  Since we first introduced the amendment in 1996, Nila Lynn has been 
murdered in my home State of Arizona. Nila and her husband Duane were 
three months short of their 50th wedding anniversary. Nila was shot in 
the back by Richard Glassel and died in Duane's arms. Despite the fact 
that Duane had a State constitutional right to be heard at Glassel's 
sentencing and despite the fact that Glassel was afforded the right to 
make a sentencing recommendation to the jury, Duane's voice was 
silenced because he had no U.S. Constitutional right to make a similar 
sentencing recommendation.
  For far too long, the criminal justice system has ignored crime 
victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. 
Our criminal justice system will never be truly just as long as 
criminals have rights and victims have none.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 1

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. The rights of victims of violent crime, being 
     capable of protection without denying the constitutional 
     rights of those accused of victimizing them, are hereby 
     established and shall not be denied by any State or the 
     United States and may be restricted only as provided in this 
     article.
       ``Section 2. A victim of violent crime shall have the right 
     to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding 
     involving the crime and of any release or escape of the 
     accused; the rights not to be excluded from such public 
     proceeding and reasonably to be heard at public release, 
     plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and the 
     right to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the 
     victim's safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and 
     just and timely claims to restitution from the offender. 
     These rights shall not be restricted except when

[[Page 163]]

     and to the degree dictated by a substantial interest in 
     public safety or the administration of criminal justice, or 
     by compelling necessity.
       ``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to 
     provide grounds for a new trial or to authorize any claim for 
     damages. Only the victim or the victim's lawful 
     representative may assert the rights established by this 
     article, and no person accused of the crime may obtain any 
     form of relief hereunder.
       ``Section 4. Congress shall have power to enforce by 
     appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. 
     Nothing in this article shall affect the President's 
     authority to grant reprieves or pardons.
       ``Section 5. This article shall be inoperative unless it 
     has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 
     years from the date of its submission to the States by the 
     Congress. This article shall take effect on the 180th day 
     after the date of its ratification.''.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join my good friend, Senator Kyl, in 
introducing S.J. Res, 1, the Victims' Rights Amendment.
  Two years ago, the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment 
drafted by Senator Kyl and me to protect the rights of victims of 
violent crime. The amendment had been reported out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. After 82 
Senators voted to proceed to consideration of the amendment, there was 
a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate. Some Senators raised 
concerns about the amendment, saying that it was too long or that it 
read too much like a statute.
  Ultimately, in the face of a threatened filibuster, Senator Kyl and I 
decided to withdraw the amendment. We then hunkered down with 
constitutional experts, such as Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law 
School, to see if we could revise the amendment to meet Senators' 
concerns. We also worked with constitutional experts at the Department 
of Justice and the White House, and we came up with a new and improved 
draft of the amendment. This new amendment provides many of the same 
rights as the old amendment.
  Specifically, the amendment would give crime victims the rights to be 
notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. 
It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated 
fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of 
the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it 
would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or 
offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our 
Constitution.
  We had a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee. Unfortunately, the 
Judiciary Committee did not act on the amendment. There are many 
reasons why we need a constitutional amendment.
  First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. 
Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate 
constitutional rights, fifteen of them provided by amendments to the 
U.S. Constitution, there is not a single word in the Constitution about 
crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and State 
constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is 
the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims 
need rights in the U.S. Constitution. In the event of a conflict 
between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to 
balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling 
argument.
  Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' 
rights laws. Eighteen States lack state constitutional victim's rights 
amendment, and the 32 existing State victims' rights amendments differ 
from each other. Also, virtually every State has statutory protections 
for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a 
Federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor 
for victims' rights.
  Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed 
when the Constitution was written. It is a little known fact that at 
the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for 
victims, not public prosecutors, to prosecute criminal cases. Because 
victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic 
rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not 
surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims.
  Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a 
criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural 
rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest 
notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the 
Constitution was drafted.
  Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere State 
law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of 
Federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice 
Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even in 
States with strong legal protections for victims' rights, many victims 
are denied those rights. The studies have also found that statutes are 
insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a Federal 
constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the 
rights they are due.
  Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because Federal 
statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the 
Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent 
crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 99 
percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal 
statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend 
the U.S. Constitution.
  The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we need a 
constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the strongest 
Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face of a 
defendant's constitutional rights. In that case, two Federal victims' 
rights statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear 
right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing, even 
though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of 
allowing the victims to do just that.
  Let me quote from the first of these statutes: the Victims of Crime 
Bill of Rights, passed in 1990. That Bill of Rights provides in part 
that:
  A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be present at 
all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless that court 
determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if 
the victim heard other testimony at trial.
  That statute further states that Federal Government officers and 
employees ``engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of 
crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are 
accorded the[se] rights.''
  The law also provides that ``[t]his section does not create a cause 
of action or defense in favor of any person arising out of the failure 
to accord to a victim the[se] rights.''
  In spite of the law, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case 
ruled, without any request from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys, that no 
victim who saw any portion of the case could testify about the 
bombing's impact at a possible sentencing hearing:
  The Justice Department asked the judge to exempt victims who would 
not be ``factual witnesses at trial'' but who might testify at a 
sentencing hearing about the impact of the bombing on their lives. The 
judge denied the motion. The victims were then given until the 
lunchbreak to decide whether to watch the proceedings or remain 
eligible to testify at a sentencing hearing. In the hour that they had, 
some of the victims opted to watch the proceedings; other decided to 
leave to remain eligible to testify at the sentencing hearing.
  Subsequently, the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider 
its order in light of the 1990 Victims' Bill of Rights. Bombing victims 
then filed their own motion to raise their rights under the Victims' 
Bill of Rights. The court denied both motions. With regard to the 
victims' motion, the judge held that the victims lacked standing. The 
judge stated that the victims would not be able to separate the 
``experience of trial'' from the ``experience of loss from the conduct 
in question.'' The judge also alluded to concerns about

[[Page 164]]

the defendants' constitutional rights, the common law, and rules of 
evidence.
  The victims and DOJ separately appealed to the Court of Appeals for 
the Tenth Circuit. That court ruled that the victims lacked standing 
under Article III of the Constitution because they had no ``legally 
protected interest'' to be present at trial and thus had suffered no 
``injury in fact'' from their exclusion. The victims and DOJ then asked 
the entire Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Forty-nine members of 
Congress, all six attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit, and many of 
the leading crime victims' organizations filed briefs in support of the 
victims. All to no avail.
  The Victims' Clarification Act of 1997 when then introduced in 
Congress. That act provided that watching a trial does not constitute 
grounds for denying victims the chance to provide an impact statement. 
This bill passed the House 414 to 13 and the Senate by unanimous 
consent. Two days later, President Clinton signed into law, explaining 
that ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of 
the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.''
  The victims then filed a motion asserting a right to attend the trial 
under the new law. However, the judge declined to apply the law as 
written. He concluded that ``any motions raising constitutional 
questions about this legislation would be premature and would present 
questions issues that are not now ripe for decision.'' Moreover, he 
held that it could address issues of possible prejudicial impact from 
attending the trial by interviewing the witnesses after the trial.
  The judge also refused to grant the victims a hearing on the 
application of the new law, concluding that his ruling rendered their 
request ``moot.'' The victims then faced a painful decision: watch the 
trial or preserve their right to testify at the sentencing hearing. 
Many victims gave up their right to watch the trial as a result.
  A constitutional amendment would help ensure that victims of a 
domestic terrorist attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing have 
standing and that their arguments for a right to be present are not 
dismissed as ``unripe.'' A constitutional amendment would give victims 
of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still 
testify at sentencing.
  There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. I am 
pleased that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed 
the amendment. As the President put it last year, ``The Feinstein-Kyl 
amendment was written with care, and strikes a proper balance. Our 
legal system properly protects the rights of the accused in the 
Constitution, but it does not provide similar protection for the rights 
of victims, and that must change. The protection of victims' rights is 
one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right 
thing to do. And the Feinstein-Kyl crime victims' rights amendment is 
the right way to do it.''
  I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both 
former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all 
expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victim's right. 
Moreover, in the last Congress, the Victims' Rights Amendment was 
cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 28 Senators. I have spoken to many 
of my colleagues about the amendment we introduce today and I am 
hopeful that it will receive even more support in this Congress. In 
addition I would vote the following:
  Both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms call for a 
victims' rights amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 States have called 
for an amendment. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, including 
Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft 
support an amendment. Forty State attorneys general support an 
amendment.
  Major national victims' rights groups--including Parents of Murdered 
Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and the National 
Organization for Victim Assistance, support the amendment. Many law 
enforcement groups, including the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police, the Nation Troops' Coalition, the International Union of 
Police Associations AFL-CIO, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association, and the California District Attorneys Association support 
an amendment. Constitutional scholars, such as Harvard Law School 
Professor Larry Tribe, support an amendment.
  The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty-
two States have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of 
almost 80 percent.
  I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring 
the victims' rights amendment, and I look forward to its adoption by 
this Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter dated April 15, 2002 
from Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                Harvard University Law School,

                                    Cambridge, MA, April 15, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Feinstein and Kyl: I think that you have done 
     a splendid job at distilling the prior versions of the 
     Victims' Rights Amendment into a form that would be worthy of 
     a constitutional amendment--an amendment to our most 
     fundamental legal charter, which I agree ought never to be 
     altered lightly. I will not repeat here the many reasons I 
     have set forth in the past for believing that, despite the 
     skepticism I have detected in some quarters both on the left 
     and on the right, the time is past due for recognizing that 
     the victims of violent crime, as well as those closest to 
     victims who have succumbed to such violence, have a 
     fundamental right to be considered, and heard when 
     appropriate, in decisions and proceedings that profoundly 
     affect their lives.
       How best to protect that right without compromising either 
     the fundamental rights of the accused or the important 
     prerogatives of the prosecution is not always a simple 
     matter, but I think your final working draft of April 13, 
     2002, resolves that problem in a thoughtful and sensitive 
     way, improving in a number of respects on the earlier drafts 
     that I have seen. Among other things, the greater brevity and 
     clarity of this version makes it more fitting for inclusion 
     in our basic law. That you achieved such conciseness while 
     fully protecting defendants' rights and accommodating the 
     legitimate concerns that have been voiced about prosecutorial 
     power and presidential authority is no mean feat. I happily 
     congratulate you both on attaining it.
       A case argued two weeks ago in the Supreme Judicial Court 
     of Massachusetts, in which a woman was brutally raped a 
     decade and a half ago but in which the man who was convicted 
     and sentenced to a long prison term has yet to serve a single 
     day of that sentence, helps make the point that the legal 
     system does not do well by victims even in the many states 
     that, on paper, are committed to the protection of victims' 
     rights. Despite the Massachusetts Victims' Bill of Rights, 
     solemnly enacted by the legislature to include an explicit 
     right on the part of the victim to a ``prompt disposition'' 
     of the case in which he or she was victimized, the 
     Massachusetts Attorney General, to who has yet to take the 
     simple step of seeking the incarceration of the convicted 
     criminal pending his on-again, off-again motion for a new 
     trial--a motion that has not been ruled on during the 15 
     years that this convicted rapist has been on the streets--has 
     taken the position that the victim of the rape does not even 
     have legal standing to appear in the courts of this state, 
     through counsel, to challenge the state's astonishing failure 
     to put her rapist in prison to begin serving the term to 
     which he was sentenced so long ago.
       If this remarkable failure of justice represented a wild 
     aberration, perpetrated by a state that had not incorporated 
     the rights of victims into its laws, then it would prove 
     little, standing alone, about the need to write into the 
     United States Constitution a national commitment to the 
     rights of victims. Sadly, however, the failure of justice of 
     which I write here is far from aberrant. It represents but 
     the visible tip of an enormous iceberg of indifference toward 
     those whose rights ought finally to be given formal federal 
     recognition.
       I am grateful to you for fighting this fight. I only hope 
     that many others can soon be stirred to join you in a cause 
     that deserves the most widespread bipartisan support.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Laurence H. Tribe.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S.J. Res. 2. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to require a

[[Page 165]]

balanced budget and protect Social Security surpluses; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a Balanced Budget 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When we were in 
deficit and when we were in surplus, I have always said, if we could 
adopt one fundamental reform to the way the Federal Government does 
business, this is it. The fiscal events of the last couple years have 
again demonstrated the need for this long-term, fundamental, permanent 
reform.
  For many Americans, one of the signs of our deep respect for the 
Constitution is our acknowledgment that, in exceptional cases, a 
problem rises to such a level that it can be adequately addressed only 
in the Constitution, by way of a Constitutional amendment.
  For four years in a row, a modern record, the first time since the 
1920s, Congress balanced the Federal budget. The first Republican 
Congresses in 40 years made balancing the budget their top priority, 
and did what was necessary, working on a bipartisan basis, to run the 
kind of surpluses we need to pay down the national debt and safeguard 
the future of Social Security.
  Then events intervened.
  A return to budget deficits was caused by an economic recession and a 
war begun by a terrorist attack. Even before taking office, President 
Bush correctly foresaw the coming recession and prescribed the right 
medicine, the bipartisan Tax Relief Act of 2001, that has bolstered the 
economy and prevented a far worse recession.
  Sadly, at least on the budget front, the Senate did not rise to the 
challenge. Last year, many of us were deeply disappointed by the 
Senate's failure to pass a budget resolution for the first time in the 
history of the Budget Act. That failure only made the need for fiscal 
discipline all the more evident, as we saw a return to deepening 
deficit spending.
  The return to deficit spending can and should be a temporary 
phenomenon. We will rebound from the recent economic slowdown. And we 
must do whatever it takes to win the war, that's a matter of survival 
and of protecting the safety and security of the American people. 
Beyond that, we must keep all other Federal spending under control, so 
that we return, as soon as possible, to balancing the budget.
  In other words, the return to deficit spending will be a temporary 
problem only if we make a permanent commitment to the moral imperative 
of fiscal responsibility.
  We always did, and always will, need a Balanced Budget Amendment to 
our Constitution.
  Even in the heady days of budget surpluses, I always maintained the 
only way to guarantee that the Federal Government would stay fiscally 
responsible was to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
  Before we balanced the budget in 1998, the government was deficit 
spending for 28 years in a row and for 59 out of 67 years. The basic 
law of politics, to just say ``yes'', was not repealed in 1998, but 
only restrained some, when we came together and briefly faced up to the 
grave threat to the future posed by decades of debt.
  Now, the government is back to borrowing. And for some, a return to 
deficit spending seems to have been liberating, as the demands for new 
spending only seem to be multiplying again.
  That is why, today, I am again introducing a Balanced Budget 
Amendment to the Constitution and calling upon my colleagues to send it 
to the states for ratification. The amendment I introduce today is the 
same one I cosponsored last year, which would not count the Social 
Security surplus in its calculation of a balanced budget. Those annual 
surpluses would be set aside exclusively to meet the future needs of 
Social Security beneficiaries.
  It's a new day, a new year, and a new Senate. We have the opportunity 
of a fresh start and, hopefully, the wisdom of experience. On this 
first day of the 108th Congress, with the first piece of legislation I 
am introducing this year, I call on the Senate to safeguard the future, 
by considering and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
Constitution, a Bill of Economic Rights for our future and our 
children.

                          ____________________