Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is Mental Health Awareness Week, and I rise to support S. 1194, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003. This bill is designed to address the needs of mental illness sufferers who become entangled in the criminal justice system. All too often we find that mentally ill defendants are inappropriately placed into criminal or juvenile corrections facilities, and the negative impact that this has on the individual and society is reflected in increased recidivism rates, wasted administrative costs, and unnecessary overcrowding of correction facilities, among other things. The Bureau of Justice reported that, in 1998, over 280,000 individuals in jail or prison and almost 550,000 of those on probation had a mental impairment.

The mentally ill are disproportionately represented in jails and prisons and amongst our homeless, leaving them vulnerable to criminal acts as well as criminal activities. Five percent of all Americans have a serious mental illness, but 16 to 20 percent of incarcerated persons have a mental impairment. We need to direct the kinds of resources for this issue that will provide meaningful solutions, including

expanding diversion programs, community-based treatment, re-entry services, and improved treatment during incarcerations.

The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003 recognizes that true partnerships between the mental health and criminal and juvenile corrections systems and between the Federal and State governments are needed to meet these challenges. Indeed, the bill requires that Federal funds authorized under this program be supplemented with contributions from the States, local governments and tribal organizations.

Under the provisions of this bill, planning and implementation grants would be authorized for creation or expansion of mental health courts or other court-based programs for preliminary qualified offenders; training of criminal and juvenile justice personnel and mental health professionals about mental illness and substance abuse disorders; creation or expansion of cooperative efforts between criminal and juvenile justice agencies and mental health agencies; and creation or expansion of intergovernmental cooperation between State and local governments with respect to the mentally ill offender.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1194 would authorize a grants program of $100 million a year for 2 years and would authorize amounts necessary to cover the final 3 years. Furthermore, this bill would establish a Federal interagency task force to identify better Federal, local and interdepartmental coordination of mental health services.

Congress has an obligation to legislate to protect the community from those who become aggressive or violent because of mental illness. We also have a responsibility to see that the offender receives the proper treatment for his or her illness. Far too often, mental illness goes undiagnosed, and many in our prison systems would do better in alternative settings designed to handle their particular needs.

This legislation has many supporters. It has been advocated by the U.S. Conference of Bishops and, according to its statement, S. 1194 would be a good start in ensuring that mentally ill offenders receive the proper treatment they need with grants designed to create community-based treatment programs and other services.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the first instance to support this particular legislation and, as well, to be cognizant of the need for more mental health services around the Nation at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1194, the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003.'' This bill is designed to address the needs of mental illness sufferers who become entangled within the criminal justice system.

All too often, we find that mentally ill defendants are inappropriately placed into criminal or juvenile corrections facilities, and the negative impact that this has on the individual and society is reflected in increased recidivism rates, wasted administrative costs, and unnecessary overcrowding of corrections facilities, among other things.

The Bureau of Justice reported that in 1998 over 280,000 individuals in jail or prison and almost 550,000 of those on probation had a mental impairment. The mentally ill are disproportionately represented in jails and prisons. Five percent of all Americans have a serious mental illness, but sixteen to twenty percent of incarcerated individuals have a mental impairment.

We need to direct the kinds of resources for this issue that will provide meaningful solutions, including expanding diversion programs, community-based treatment, re-entry services, and improved treatment during incarceration. The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003 recognizes that true partnerships between the mental health and criminal and juvenile corrections systems and between the Federal and State Governments are needed to meet these challenges. Indeed, the bill requires that Federal funds authorized under this program be supplemented with contributions from the States, local governments, and tribal organizations.

Under the provisions of this Bill, planning and implementation grants would be authorized for the:

Creation or expansion of mental health courts or other court-based ``programs for preliminarily qualified offenders'';

Training of criminal and juvenile justice personnel and mental health professionals about mental illness and substance abuse disorders;

Creation or expansion of cooperative efforts between criminal and juvenile justice agencies and mental health agencies; and

Creation or expansion of intergovernmental cooperation between State and local governments with respect to the mentally ill offender.

S. 1194 would authorize the grants program at $100 million a year for 2 years and would authorize the amounts necessary to cover the final 3 years. Furthermore, this bill would establish a Federal ``Interagency Task Force'' to identify better Federal-local and interdepartmental coordination of mental health services.

Congress has an obligation to legislate to protect the community from those who become aggressive or violent because of mental illness. We also have a responsibility to see that the offender receives the proper treatment for his or her illness. Far too often, mental illness goes undiagnosed, and many in our prison system would do better in alternative settings designed to handle their particular needs.

This legislation has been advocated by the U.S. Conference of Bishops. According to its statement, S. 1194 would be ``a good start towards ensuring that mentally ill offenders receive the proper treatment they need with grants designed to create community based treatment programs and other services.''

In Texas, past treatment of mentally ill offenders illustrates the need for legislation such as S. 1194. Senior U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice, who is experienced in dealing with mentally ill prisoners in Texas, ruled in 1980 that the Texas prison system is unconstitutional and placed it under Federal control for 30 years. In Judge Justice's estimation, the Texas laws that apply to the mentally ill ``lack compassion and emphasize vengeance.'' KPFT news reported him as having said, ``We have allowed the spirit of vengeance such unrivaled sway in our dealings with those who commit crime that we have ceased to consider properly whether we have taken adequate account of the role that mental impairment may play in the determination of moral responsibility. As a result, we punish those who we cannot justly blame. Such result is not, I believe worthy of a civil society.''

The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003 takes a good first step toward reforming a system that has operated under a shield for far too long. We must continue to make this legislation effective enough to save the lives of these defendants who are truly victims.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons above-stated, I support the legislation before this body as reported favorably by the Full Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), one of this Congress's most vocal and most passionate voices for the underserved when it comes to mental health services around the Nation and has consistently battled on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is an indictment. Certainly this bill stands as a model of what we can do for incarcerated persons suffering from mental illness; but we are long overdue, long overdue from the vast understanding of mental health in this country and the need for a mental health parity bill. I cannot thank the gentleman enough for being the leader of this team that continues to work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who brings not only his professional background, but we have worked over the years together, particularly after the numerous school shootings, on issues dealing with counselors in schools and the need for mental health care in schools.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I was expecting another speaker. I do not see that that person has arrived at this point. But let me in closing on this legislation ask my colleagues to support it.

Let me mention a fallen colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, who I had the pleasure of having spend some time with me in my congressional district; and what the distinguished gentleman said from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) is very accurate.

We visited juvenile detention centers and found in the course of that visit individuals who really needed to have intervention with respect to mental health concerns. We found that constantly. And I just want to mention that in Texas past treatments of mentally ill offenders certainly illustrates the need for this legislation.

Senior U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice, who is experienced in dealing with mentally ill prisoners in Texas, ruled in 1980 that the Texas prison system is unconstitutional and placed under Federal control for 30 years. In Judge Justice's estimation, the Texas laws that apply to the mentally ill lack compassion and emphasize a vengeance.

KPFT News reported him as having said, ``We have allowed the spirit of vengeance such unrivaled sway in our dealings with those who commit crime that we cease to consider properly whether we have taken adequate account of the role that mental impairment may play in the determination of moral responsibility. As a result, we punish those who we cannot justify blame. Such result is not I believe worthy of civil society.''

This mentally ill offender treatment bill will answer the question long asked in the State of Texas and many other States. Maybe the bill will also give comfort to Lydia Roumo who called me today to indicate that her sister-in-law was diagnosed manic depressive. The family had sought help in many places but could not get her hospitalized due to laws in this particular Nation. Unfortunately, she stopped taking her medication, deteriorated and became homeless.

Certainly, this is part of the mental health concern. But the tragedy of her sister-in-law is as she became homeless she also became a victim of crime and was murdered just a few days ago.

The combination of homeless persons with mental impairment, the combination of people who perpetrate terrible acts with mental impairment and juveniles warrants an enthusiastic support of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003. I thank the authors of this legislation. And to Lydia, let me say that this is one step towards trying to solve her problem and the problems of many, many families around the Nation who have experienced the devastation of mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, in June 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank and its companion case, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid. The Court ruled in these cases that States and their institutions cannot be held liable for damages for patent infringement and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even though they can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves.

Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.

I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.

First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual property system get legal

protection but need not adhere to the law themselves. If we truly believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate a situation where one class of market participants have to play by the rules and others do not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a floor statement that was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid decisions, they ``leave us with an absurd and untenable state of affairs,'' where ``States will enjoy an enormous advantage over their private sector competitors.''

The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to- four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of the Constitution.

Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away at the legitimate constitutional authority of the federal government. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We are faced with a choice. We can respond--in a careful and measured way--by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that is crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.

About four months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by states. I have continued to refine this legislation over the years, and in February 2002, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held the Committee's first hearing on the issue of sovereign immunity and the protection of intellectual property.

Today, I am pleased to be introducing the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003, which builds on my earlier proposals and on the helpful comments I have received on those proposals from legal experts across the country. I am proud to have the House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Smith and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill.

This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re- engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.

In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. States that choose not to waive their immunity within two years after enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.

This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of federal funds under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach conditions to the federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full protection for your federal intellectual property rights, you must respect those of others.

I am encouraged by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which, although very narrow, suggests that certain Justices may be starting to realize that the Court has gone too far in sacrificing ordinary people's rights at the altar of sovereign immunity. By upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act as applied to the States, the Hibbs case also suggests that a very carefully crafted law, which simply does what is necessary to protect important rights, will be upheld.

I hope we can all agree on the need to protect the rights of intellectual property owners. A recent GAO study confirmed that, as the law now stands, owners of intellectual property have few or no alternatives or remedies available against State infringers--just a series of dead ends.

We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the international ramifications here. American trading interests have been well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has created.

Senator Brownback made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing on February 27, 2002. He said, ``When states assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and biotechnology.''

The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping legislation in the early 1990s, but were thwarted by the Supreme Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation without further delay.

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

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

I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that

hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health systems, prisons and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. As this legislation's findings detail, more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. This is a serious problem that I hear about often when I talk with law enforcement officials and others in Vermont.

Under this bill, State and local governments can apply for funding to a. create or expand mental health courts or other court-based programs, which can divert qualified offenders from prison to receive treatment; b. create or expand programs to provide specialized training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel; c. create or expand local treatment programs that serve individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; and d. promote and provide mental health treatment for those incarcerated in or released from a penal or correctional institution.

This legislation brings together law enforcement, corrections, and mental health professionals--indeed, officials from each of these fields in Vermont have offered their advice and support in drafting this bill. They know that the States have been dealing with the unique problems created by mentally ill offenders for many years, and that a Federal response is overdue. I look forward to working with them, and with Senator DeWine, Representative Ted Strickland, and other Members, to see this bill enacted this Congress.

Mr. President, imagine for a moment you have gone to the doctor to have a medical condition evaluated. Uncertain as to what your injury may be, your doctor sends you to a specialist for a medical imaging examination to determine the extent of your injury and the proper course of treatment for it.

Or, imagine, having heard the dreaded diagnosis of cancer, going to the same facility for radiation therapy.

In either case, our sense of concern and anxiety about our medical condition will serve to focus our attention on ourselves, and not on the caregivers providing us with the treatment we need to recover, or in the case of cancer, to survive.

But, what would you say if you knew that the individual helping to direct your diagnosis or the one providing your course of treatment is someone who has done nothing more to earn his credentials than spend a few weeks getting some on the job training.

Imagine how you would feel and the level of trust you would have in a system that allowed such a thing to happen.

Unfortunately, that's an all too common occurrence with the present state of our health care system.

But, it is a problem that we can solve with the passage of legislation I am introducing today.

The Consumer Assurance of Radiological Excellence, RadCARE, Act will ensure that there are coherent standards in place for those who plan and deliver radiation therapy treatments. I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, as well as Senators Daschle, Lautenberg, and Dorgan, in this effort, which will bring peace of mind and restore the confidence of the health consumer in the treatment they receive from those who perform radiologic procedures. It will also increase awareness of the skills of these health care professionals and raise the level of visibility their profession enjoys in the public eye.

It is important that we establish standards for personnel who perform radiologic procedures because physicians depend upon medical imaging examinations to diagnose disease and identify and treat injuries of all kinds. The quality of a radiologic procedure hinges upon the expertise of the professionals who assist in administering them.

Currently, 15 States as well as the District of Columbia do not regulate or register radiologic personnel.

To address that lack of attention, the RadCARE Act will strengthen the Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981. The current law calls for States to establish voluntarily a set of educational and credentialing standards for radiologic and medical imaging personnel. Yet many States still do not have licensing laws in place that meet the standards recommended by the Federal Government. The RadCARE Act will require that radiologic and medical imaging personnel meet a minimum credentialing standard.

The RadCARE Act will not affect states that have a suitable licensing system or those that have mandated higher standards than required by Federal law. If a state has no meaningful

regulations or licensing system, however, then the Federal standards will apply. The RadCARE Act also has a provision to ensure access to quality healthcare in rural regions where a one-size-fits all approach may not be applicable. Enforcement of the RadCARE Act would be achieved by restricting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to facilities that employ personnel who meet the minimal federal standards.

The RedCARE Act will improve the safety of radiological procedures by reducing the risk of harmful overexposure to radiation. Healthcare costs will also be lowered by decreasing the number of repeated procedures due to personnel error. Additionally, the RadCARE Act will enable radiologists and other healthcare professionals to have access to quality information so that patients receive the best health care possible.

This legislation is supported by a variety of organizations concerned with the quality of these procedures, including the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, the Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist Section, the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board, the Association of Vascular and Interventional Radiographers, and the other members of the Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, which represents the more than 275,000 medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in the United States.

When it comes right down to it, it's a big enough battle to fight the cancers or the injuries to our bodies that require such invasive treatments or diagnosis. We shouldn't have to worry about the level of competence of those who are providing us with the services we so desperately require for the maintenance of our health.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing this much needed legislation. It respects the power of the states who have addressed this problem as it provides minimum standards for those who have not.

More importantly, its enactment into law will do a great deal to increase the level of confidence of the American health consumer in our healthcare system.

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

Mr. President, one of the great benefits of the revolution in information technology has been its effect on education. With the information superhighway and the number of online research and information sources it has made available, modern technology and higher education have become inseparable.

The notion of distance learning and the access it provides to students--especially those in rural areas--could use a little more support, however, so that is why I am introducing the Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003.

This legislation builds on principles already found in the Higher Education Act to help reach populations that have traditionally been excluded from attending institutions of higher education.

Wyoming is a very rural State. There is only one four year school in the entire State, and there are only seven community colleges. If you include the University of Wyoming's satellite campuses, that adds up to nine institutions of higher education in an area of nearly one hundred thousand square miles. By contrast, there are one hundred twenty nine institutions of higher education in the State of Massachusetts, which makes up an area roughly one tenth the size of Wyoming. In fact, the only State that has fewer institutions of higher education is Alaska.

Expanding access to higher education for our rural communities has been a challenge for many years. Now, the Internet has made it possible for prospective students in rural communities, far removed from the university campus, to attend college online. They may now spend their time studying, rather than commuting back and forth between school.

At present, the most significant barriers that distance learners and online education programs must face are those that were created by the Higher Education Act. Under current law, students attending institutions that enroll more than half of their students in distance programs are ineligible for Federal student financial assistance. As a result, many of the communities that this assistance is designed to reach have been excluded from sharing in its benefits, including students from rural communities, single mothers, working professionals, and a range of others who are interested in attending college but who cannot afford to do so.

The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem by creating an avenue for online and distance educators to reach out to rural communities and non-traditional students by making them eligible for federal student assistance. It creates an eligibility standard for these institutions that helps to ensure they will provide high quality education programs, while it also protects Federal funding from fraud and abuse.

The Distance Learning and Online Education Act ensures students will receive a high quality education by requiring online educators to become accredited by an agency that has an appropriate focus on distance education. As provided under current law, the accrediting body must also be recognized by the Secretary of Education as an agency that can determine the institution's eligibility under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This is a slightly higher standard than is expected of the brick and mortar institutions that have been entrusted with Title IV funding since the Higher Education Act was originally passed.

My bill will also protect against any fraud and abuse of Title VI funds by requiring distance educators to demonstrate their financial responsibility. In addition to meeting the default rates already established in current law, institutions interested in becoming eligible must also have a record free from audit findings or program review findings resulting in significant penalties for a period of at least two years. Distance learning institutions must also show that they have not had their participation in Title IV limited, suspended or terminated during the previous five years, and they must create a system of assurances that the student participating in the program is the individual completing the work.

It is clear that the shape of higher education in this country is changing and it will never be the same again. We have an opportunity, through technology, to reach student populations that have been excluded from participation in higher education because they cannot afford to attend or travel to classrooms or campuses located many miles from their homes. We can change part of the equation by changing the way we view those programs that hold the greatest promise for non- traditional students. Making them eligible for federal student assistance will go a long way toward making a higher education available to everyone with

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

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

Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity while we are in the quorum call to come to the floor and comment briefly on what we have done in the last several days and look ahead as to next week. We won't actually be closing here for a little bit as we are working on a couple of issues.

I want to thank everybody formally for the hard work they put forward this week. It was an aggressive week in terms of what we set out to accomplish, and we were able to finish everything we said we were going to do, with one exception, and that is set up to complete at the end of next week. People worked very late last night, with 14 rollcall votes, finishing close to midnight. I thank everybody for that commitment manifested over the last several days.

The days have been very long. Everybody's schedules are full with activities not just on the floor. There is this constant balancing act. We had to deal with three or four issues and bills at the same time. It seems to individual schedulers of Senators that things are somewhat discombobulated. Despite all that, we were able to finish a number of issues.

The Healthy Forests legislation was accelerated into the schedule because we had not planned exactly when we were going to do that. That took a lot of cooperation. We were able to take it to the floor and complete it, which is especially important with the recent fires that are and have been burning in California. As we have watched those images, we could not help but extend our prayers to the families, for the individuals who are so directly affected in that part of the country and also by fires in other States. With those images now that we see every morning, every night, and over the course of the day, we extend our heartfelt prayers to those affected.

On the Foreign Operations bill, our majority whip did a tremendous job in ushering that bill through. We had the bill on the floor. We came to a point where we had certain challenges in terms of funding and paying for a particular very important amendment on HIV/AIDS, and the cooperation there on both sides of the aisle in being able to move off that bill for a period of time while that was resolved with the President pro tempore, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens, coming forward and working out a proposal that allowed us to reach out and send a strong message across the world that this little virus, HIV/AIDS, is something we are going to beat over time; and then, with all that cooperation, coming back to the floor and passing that amendment, and ultimately the Foreign Operations bill last night, gives me a great deal of satisfaction because it shows cooperation, partnership, working together, and the attention to people's schedules on the floor, an efficient use of everyone's time.

I congratulate Senator McConnell, the majority whip, who did a superb job in that regard.

The nomination of Michael Leavitt, now Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, was an issue we addressed, and it took a lot of work both behind the scenes and on the floor of the Senate. We were able to vitiate cloture and we were able to give him an up-or-down vote, which I would like to see more of in other nominations, and we will continue to fight for that. Michael Leavitt, now Administrator, got that up-or-down vote. That stresses the importance of having that sort of process of an up-or-down vote for all of the President's nominees.

In the Leavitt debate, there were disagreements on various policy issues, but we had a qualified nominee at the time. He deserved that vote and he got it, and I was pleased that he was confirmed by a large bipartisan vote.

The Iraq supplemental is coming to a close, and through the agreement last night, we will deliver on the President's request in terms of supporting our military women and men overseas and doing everything we possibly can from a legislative and financial standpoint to ensure their safety, but to maximize the safety of the Iraqi people and the reconstructive efforts promoted aggressively and entirely consistent with what Ambassador Bremer told us was necessary, our military leaders told us was necessary, our Commander in Chief told us was necessary.

There are a number of issues we debated in terms of how we monitor the spending of this money, which has been resolved, and whether it should be grants versus loans. There was a lot of good debate, and the issue was ultimately resolved right where the President said it would be most useful. We will complete that Monday. There will be no rollcall vote because both sides of the aisle have agreed to that, but we will talk further about the issue Monday. By Monday early evening or late afternoon, that bill will pass and that will bring that issue to a close.

We will spend a little time on the Interior conference report on Monday, and we will have a vote on that late Monday afternoon, somewhere between 5 and 6, probably 5:30 to 6 p.m.

We have the fair credit reporting bill on which we have agreement to bring to the floor, and that will probably be Tuesday.

Then we have the Internet tax moratorium which, as I said earlier this morning, I would have liked to have addressed today or last night, but because there are a number of Members who feel very strongly that we have to have a different time for debate, we all agree we will be doing that bill probably Thursday of next week. As I expressed this morning, my intention is to finish that either Thursday or Friday.

Last night, we did act on the continuing resolution, and that will fund our Governmental operations until November 7, and that will allow us to continue our work on the remaining business.

I also spoke earlier this morning about the urgency that I feel, which I want to express to my colleagues, to stay focused, to complete the appropriations process, as well as the work in the various conferences so we can adjourn at a reasonable time.

All of this work--again, most of this is just from the last several days--means that we have had to work throughout the day each day this past week and into the evening.

Also, because a lot of things we handle in wrap-up, and people are not generally aware because they are not done with a lot of fanfare but are done by unanimous consent of the entire body, I find it useful each evening when I close, but especially at the end of the week, to look at some of those bills.

This week the Senate passed S. 1194, Senator Mike DeWine's Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act. I mentioned earlier that Senator DeWine was instrumental in putting together the amendment on HIV/AIDS to the foreign operations bill, which we passed as well.

The bill S. 1768, the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which was introduced by Senator Bunning, was passed.

We are still hoping today to make progress on the military tax fairness bill. This bill is intended to hopefully level the playing field with respect to tax policy for many members of the Armed Forces. I know there is currently an objection, but I encourage those people who objected to in the next few minutes or hours, whatever it takes, look at that bill and hopefully be able to clear that as soon as possible.

Senator Inhofe's bill, S. 1757 relating to the Kennedy Center reauthorization, was just cleared by both sides. There was another bill from Senator Specter and the Veterans' Committee, S. 1132, the veterans benefits bill, an important

bill that we need to finish as we approach November 11. That will be finalized shortly.

The point is, we are able to proceed in a bipartisan manner, and we are making progress. We must continue to do that to get the needed work done as we try to work out or work through the host of complicated issues which are inevitable when we deal with legislation.

We will continue to work across the aisle to do the necessary work of this body as we move through these final days.

Again, we will not close the Senate until we work through a few remaining items of business, but I say thanks to my colleagues. We are making progress. We have a lot of work to do over the coming days, but we are going to be able to adjourn in a reasonable period of time if we stay focused and stay disciplined as we go forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Domenici, Leahy, Grassley, and Cantwell, to introduce the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003.'' This bipartisan measure would, among other things, create a program of planning and implementation grants for communities so they may offer more treatment and other services to mentally ill offenders. Under this bill, programs receiving grant funds would be operated collaboratively by both a criminal justice agency and a mental health agency.

The mentally ill population poses a particularly difficult challenge for our criminal justice system. People afflicted with mental illness are incarcerated at significantly higher rates than the general population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, while only about five percent of the American population has a mental illness, about 16 percent of the State prison population has such an illness. The Los Angeles County Jail, for example,

typically has more mentally ill inmates than any hospital in the country.

Unfortunately, however, the reality of our criminal justice system is that jails and prisons do not provide a therapeutic environment for the mentally ill and are unlikely to do so any time soon. Indeed, the mentally ill inmate often is preyed upon by other inmates or becomes even sicker in jail. Once released from jail or prison, many mentally ill people end up on the streets. With limited personal resources and little or no ability to handle their illness alone, they often commit further offenses resulting in their re-arrest and re-incarceration. This ``revolving door'' is costly and disruptive for all involved.

Although these problems tend to manifest themselves primarily within the prison system, the root cause of our current situation is found in the mental health system and its failure to provide sufficient community-based treatment solutions. Accordingly, the solution will necessarily involve collaboration between the mental health system and criminal justice system. In fact, it also will require greater collaboration between the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment communities, because many mentally ill offenders have a drug or alcohol problem in addition to their mental illness.

The purpose of the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act'' is to foster exactly this type of collaboration at the Federal, State, and local levels. The bill provides incentives for the criminal justice, juvenile justice, mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems to work together at each level of government to establish a network of services for offenders with mental illness. The bill's approach is unique, in that it not only would promote public safety by helping curb the incidence of repeat offenders, but it also would promote public health, by ensuring that those with a serious mental illness are treated as soon as possible and as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Among its major provisions, this legislation calls for the establishment of a new competitive grant program, which would be housed at the U.S. Department of Justice, but administered by the Attorney General with the active involvement of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. To ensure that collaboration occurs at the local level, the bill would require that two entities jointly submit a single grant application on behalf of a community.

Applications demonstrating the greatest commitment to collaboration would receive priority for grant funds. If applicants can show that grant funds would be used to promote public health, as well as public safety, and if the program they propose would have the active participation of each joint applicant, and if their grant application has the support of both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, then it would receive priority for funding.

Additionally, the bill would permit grant funds to be used for a variety of purposes, each of which embodies the goal of collaboration. First, grant funds may be used to provide courts with more options, such as specialized dockets, for dealing with the non-violent offender who has a serious mental illness or a co-occurring mental illness and drug or alcohol problem. Second, grant funds could be used to enhance training of mental health and criminal justice system personnel, who must know how to deal appropriately with the mentally ill offender. Third, grant funds could be devoted to programs that divert the criminal justice system into treatment those non-violent offenders with severe and persistent mental illness. Finally, correctional facilities may use grant funds to promote the treatment of inmates and ease their transition back into the community upon release from jail or prison.

In specifically authorizing grant funds to be used to promote more options for courts to deal with mentally ill offenders, this bill builds on legislation that I introduced two years ago with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Ted Strickland. That measure, which became law, authorized $10 million per year for the establishment of more mental health courts. I have long supported mental health courts, which enable the criminal justice system to provide an individualized treatment solution for a mentally ill offender, while also requiring accountability of the offender. The legislation we are introducing today would make possible the creation or expansion of more mental health courts, and it also would promote the funding of treatment services that support such courts.

In addition to making planning and implementation grants available to communities, the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act'' also calls for an Interagency Task Force to be established at the federal level. This Task Force would include the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Commissioner of Social Security. The Task Force would be charged with identifying new ways that federal departments can work together to reduce recidivism among mentally ill adults and juveniles.

Finally, the bill would direct the Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a list of ``best practices'' for criminal justice personnel to use when diverting mentally ill offenders from the criminal justice system.

Ultimately, this is a good bill and one that is long overdue. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislative measure.

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