[Pages S67-S85]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S67]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS--Continued

______

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 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''.

[[Page S68]]

(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
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.--

[[Page S69]]

``(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).

``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

[[Page S70]]

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 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 the 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,

[[Page S71]]

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 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''.

[[Page S72]]

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.
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

[[Page S73]]

(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 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,

[[Page S74]]

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 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

[[Page S75]]

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 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 S76]]

at a severe disadvantage. Such disputes often involve instances of
discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. 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
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

[[Page S77]]

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 trained 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
199, 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 analysts 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 consider 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 New
York issued $450 million 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.

[[Page S78]]

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 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 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

[[Page S79]]

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 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

[[Page S80]]

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.
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.
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.

[[Page S81]]

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
(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

[[Page S82]]

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
announcing his support for the language of the amendment, the amendment
was ``written with care, and strikes a proper balance.'' <a href='http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html'>http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html</a>. 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 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

[[Page S83]]

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.'' <a href='http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html'>http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html</a>.
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 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

[[Page S84]]

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 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:

[[Page S85]]

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 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.

____________________