A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to direct the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to construct a national cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania. In order to facilitate the construction of a cemetery, as mandated, this bill would also require VA to consult with Federal State, and local government entities, and with Pennsylvania's veterans' service organizations, to locate land for a new cemetery in the Philadelphia area--a process of stakeholder collaboration that worked well to identify a site for a cemetery in southwestern Pennsylvania that is currently under construction--and require VA to report, no later than six months after enactment, on the status of its efforts to construct the cemetery.

It is clear to a number of observers--including, as I will discuss in a moment, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs--that Southeastern Pennsylvania needs a national cemetery. The Philadelphia area has one of the largest veterans' populations in the Nation, currently estimated at over 350,000. The fact that Pennsylvania has the second oldest veterans' population in the country makes the need for a new cemetery particularly acute. Yet the closest existing VA cemetery--the Philadelphia National Cemetery--has been closed to in-ground, casket burials since 1962 and, by 2005, will even lose the capacity to inurn or inter cremated remains, leaving area veterans with only one alternative: burial at Indiantown Gap National Cemetery, as a site as much as two hours removed, by car, from their loved ones' homes. This is not acceptable.

The VA is currently reassessing its needs for cemetery construction nationwide, and I have every expectation that VA will conclude that the Philadelphia area is a site that should be at, or near, the top if its listing of priorities. I draw this expectation from a statement made by VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi who testified at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I chair, on February 26, 2003, that ``there is clearly a need'' for a national cemetery in the Philadelphia area. He stated further ``that a national cemetery is necessary in that area to meet the interment needs of the veterans of Pennsylvania.'' Why, then, the need for legislation? This legislation is needed to assure that the Secretary's personal commitment becomes VA policy.

VA has compiled a list of areas where national cemeteries will be built over the next 20 years using a methodology which I, and the entire southeastern Pennsylvania delegation in Congress, believe is seriously flawed. The first flaw of VA's methodology is its assumption that a locality has a ``need'' for a cemetery if a veterans' population of more than 170,000 resides more than 75 miles from an open State or national cemetery. This assumption gives no consideration to the fact that heavily-congested areas, like southeastern Pennsylvania, may have thousands, or even ten of thousands, of veterans residing just under 75 miles from the nearest cemetery. The second flaw of VA's methodology is its assumption that veterans are adequately provided a burial option if a national cemetery is close proximity offers the option of inurning or interring cremated remains. For many reasons, cremation is not an option. Indeed, while cremation is growing in popularity, it is not yet the preferred burial method among most Americans.

The entire southeastern Pennsylvania delegation to Congress has expressed these objections to Secretary Principi by a letter dated July 26, 2002, which I ask be printed in the Record. It is these objectionable VA policy impediments which cause me to introduce this bill despite Secretary Principi's statements of agreement on the need for a Philadelphia area cemetery. I hope--and I expect--that the mandate of this legislation will not need to be triggered, though I do anticipate that the consultation procedures specified in my bill will, in any case, be useful in identifying a proper site for a Philadelphia area cemetery.

One final note on the issue of proper siting of a cemetery. During the 107th Congress, I introduced a bill, S. 618, that would have designate lands within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Park as a national cemetery. In a development that was surprising to me, some argued that Valley Forge lands would be an inappropriate resting place for veterans. I believed then--and I believe now--that the sensitive designation of Valley Forge lands in areas, for example, north of the Schuylkill River that were not encampments for Washington's Army, would be entirely appropriate. In any case, the legislation I have introduced today would allow for--but not compel--the location of a national cemetery in Valley Forge.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to direct the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to construct a national cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania. In order to facilitate the construction of a cemetery, as mandated, this bill would also require VA to consult with Federal State, and local government entities, and with Pennsylvania's veterans' service organizations, to locate land for a new cemetery in the Philadelphia area--a process of stakeholder collaboration that worked well to identify a site for a cemetery in southwestern Pennsylvania that is currently under construction--and require VA to report, no later than six months after enactment, on the status of its efforts to construct the cemetery.

It is clear to a number of observers--including, as I will discuss in a moment, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs--that Southeastern Pennsylvania needs a national cemetery. The Philadelphia area has one of the largest veterans' populations in the Nation, currently estimated at over 350,000. The fact that Pennsylvania has the second oldest veterans' population in the country makes the need for a new cemetery particularly acute. Yet the closest existing VA cemetery--the Philadelphia National Cemetery--has been closed to in-ground, casket burials since 1962 and, by 2005, will even lose the capacity to inurn or inter cremated remains, leaving area veterans with only one alternative: burial at Indiantown Gap National Cemetery, as a site as much as two hours removed, by car, from their loved ones' homes. This is not acceptable.

The VA is currently reassessing its needs for cemetery construction nationwide, and I have every expectation that VA will conclude that the Philadelphia area is a site that should be at, or near, the top if its listing of priorities. I draw this expectation from a statement made by VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi who testified at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I chair, on February 26, 2003, that ``there is clearly a need'' for a national cemetery in the Philadelphia area. He stated further ``that a national cemetery is necessary in that area to meet the interment needs of the veterans of Pennsylvania.'' Why, then, the need for legislation? This legislation is needed to assure that the Secretary's personal commitment becomes VA policy.

VA has compiled a list of areas where national cemeteries will be built over the next 20 years using a methodology which I, and the entire southeastern Pennsylvania delegation in Congress, believe is seriously flawed. The first flaw of VA's methodology is its assumption that a locality has a ``need'' for a cemetery if a veterans' population of more than 170,000 resides more than 75 miles from an open State or national cemetery. This assumption gives no consideration to the fact that heavily-congested areas, like southeastern Pennsylvania, may have thousands, or even ten of thousands, of veterans residing just under 75 miles from the nearest cemetery. The second flaw of VA's methodology is its assumption that veterans are adequately provided a burial option if a national cemetery is close proximity offers the option of inurning or interring cremated remains. For many reasons, cremation is not an option. Indeed, while cremation is growing in popularity, it is not yet the preferred burial method among most Americans.

The entire southeastern Pennsylvania delegation to Congress has expressed these objections to Secretary Principi by a letter dated July 26, 2002, which I ask be printed in the Record. It is these objectionable VA policy impediments which cause me to introduce this bill despite Secretary Principi's statements of agreement on the need for a Philadelphia area cemetery. I hope--and I expect--that the mandate of this legislation will not need to be triggered, though I do anticipate that the consultation procedures specified in my bill will, in any case, be useful in identifying a proper site for a Philadelphia area cemetery.

One final note on the issue of proper siting of a cemetery. During the 107th Congress, I introduced a bill, S. 618, that would have designate lands within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Park as a national cemetery. In a development that was surprising to me, some argued that Valley Forge lands would be an inappropriate resting place for veterans. I believed then--and I believe now--that the sensitive designation of Valley Forge lands in areas, for example, north of the Schuylkill River that were not encampments for Washington's Army, would be entirely appropriate. In any case, the legislation I have introduced today would allow for--but not compel--the location of a national cemetery in Valley Forge.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Antitrust Improvements Act of 2003.'' I want to thank the Ranking Democrat Member from the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for joining me in introducing this measure as an original cosponsor. I hope that we can expeditiously report this measure from the Judiciary Committee and bring it to the Senate floor.

The Hatch-Leahy Antitrust Improvements Act of 2003 is long overdue. The bill updates the criminal penalties applicable to antitrust criminal violations and repeals the archaic Title VIII of the ``Antidumping Act of 1916,'' as requested by the administration.

After careful examination and study of the current penalty structure for antitrust criminal offenses, Senator Leahy and I have come to agreement that the law needs to be modernized in a number of areas. Under current law, a person who commits a criminal violation of the antitrust laws can be subject to maximum punishment of 3 years imprisonment, while a corporation can be fined a maximum of $10 million. These punishments need to be updated to reflect changes in market conditions, as well as to make them consistent with other changes we enacted last year to white collar criminal offenses as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. Under the Hatch-Leahy proposal, the maximum punishment for an individual would be raised to 10 years imprisonment, and for a corporation the maximum fine would be increased to $100 million.

These changes are long overdue and will eliminate the huge disparity present in our laws between the treatment of criminal white collar offenses and antitrust criminal violations. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed last year raised the criminal penalties for a number of white collar offenses, but did not do so for antitrust criminal violations. An antitrust price-fixer who defrauds consumers for a total of $5 million should be subject to a penalty which is more consistent with the penalty scheme for other white collar offenses. There is little difference, in my mind, between a market place criminal who takes advantage of consumers and a white collar cheater who steals money from his victims.

The Hatch-Leahy proposal also will raise the maximum fines applicable to corporations and other legal entities from $10 million to $100 million per violation. Such a change is needed to reflect the change in our economy and the importance of maintaining a credible deterrent against such conduct by corporations and other entities.

It is also essential to note that all criminal fines are paid into a Victims Fund, which is administered by the Justice Department, and ultimately disbursed to support victims' advocacy groups. Criminals who have assets must first pay restitution to any identifiable victims to compensate them for their suffering, and then must pay

fines to the Victims Fund. The increased criminal fines will enhance the Justice Department's ability to support advocacy groups who work so hard on behalf of the victims of crime across America.

The Antitrust Division's criminal enforcement program has been very successful in the past years, particularly in the area of criminal enforcement against international cartels affecting well over $10 billion in commerce. With these new tools, the Antitrust Division can be even more effective in enforcing our antitrust criminal laws and deterring and preventing future offenses against American consumers.

This bill also repeals an archaic provision of law, enacted in 1916, that allows private lawsuits with potential of treble damages against importers or producers for unfair pricing provided they had the intent to injure a U.S. industry. The World Trade Organization, WTO, has ruled that this act violates the United States obligations to address unfair pricing through the specified administrative measures of the Antidumping Agreement. Repealing this statute is an important and necessary step in complying with our obligations under negotiated international treaties.

I urge my colleagues to support these important measures and support the Antitrust Improvements Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center Bill. I am joined by my colleagues and fellow Vietnam veterans, Senators McCain and Kerry, in sponsoring this bill that would authorize the construction of an Education Center near the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Twenty-one years ago, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built as a permanent testament to the sacrifice of over 58,000 veterans who died during the Vietnam War. It is a place of remembrance for Vietnam veterans and their families.

As the Vietnam War draws further into America's past, it is important for future generations to remember the sacrifices of those who gave their lives in Vietnam, and to understand the lessons learned in Vietnam.

Most visitors to the Wall today were not alive during the Vietnam War. The Education Center would serve as an access point for the next generation. By collecting historic documents, artifacts and the testimony of Vietnam veterans, the Education Center would provide visitors with a better understanding of the Memorial.

The Memorial was designed to accommodate expansion. Over the last two decades, the Wall's reach has extended; names of fallen soldiers have been added to the black granite. Building the Education Center underground would expand the memorial in a new direction--one that does not distract from the natural beauty of the Mall.

The names on the Wall must never become simple, empty etchings. Their individual and collective power must remain connected to the real human sacrifices of war. The Education Center would help preserve this bond. It would affirm the meaning of the Wall, not just as an acknowledgment of a war or a date to be remembered, but as a living memorial with lessons to offer those who come to learn.

Many educators, veterans, lawmakers and organizations have voiced strong support for the proposed Education Center. Like the Wall, the Center would be funded entirely by private donations--evidence of its broad-based public support. There would be no tax payer money involved in building the Center.

Building an Education Center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial would affirm the belief that we can inspire peace by educating our young people about the consequences of war. For there is no stronger advocate for peace than one who knows war.

I am proud to sponsor this bill authorizing the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center. I ask my colleagues to join me and Senators Kerry and McCain in support of this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will amend Title V of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, this bill will eliminate the 2-year wait-out period now required between applications by eligible Hispanic Serving Institutions for grants under Title V of the Higher Education Act.

Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic Serving Institutions. Grants under this section can be used by higher education institutions to strengthen academic quality, institutional management, and financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students.

Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under Title V, an institution must have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum 2-year wait-out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. During Fiscal Year 2002, 191 institutions were awarded grants.

Title V's 2-year wait-out period impedes Hispanic Serving Institutions' efforts to implement continuing programs with long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Eliminating the 2- year wait-out period will be of great importance to equipping our Nation's Hispanic Serving Institutions with the continuous funding that they need to best answer complex challenges. In 2000, Congress eliminated the wait-out period for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Historically Black Colleges and Universities also do not have a wait- out period. It is now time for us to eliminate the wait-out period for Hispanic Serving Institutions.

Hispanic Serving Institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home State of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic Serving Institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions, and preventing these institutions from reapplying for grants for 2 successive years is obstructing their development.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.